I must confess I'd never heard of L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E nor of the poets who dangle therefrom. So I dutifully did a bit of research.
It seems to me there is much in common here with other forms of "constraint" poetry such as that practised by the Oulipo movement (including the Univocalism which, if done well, can actually be quite effective).
But all poetry is written with constraints. Those who think "Free Verse" is a licence to write any old thing are mistaken.
What seems to be at issue in these type of debates is the extremity or artificiality of the constraints imposed.
In music one response to what was felt to be the stale, worked out, infertile Western Tonal system was the Serial Movement. Its constraints seem extremely severe and artificial to me. And noone could have any doubts that it was a project that failed.
But Schoenberg, who pretty much fathered serialism, was no mug when it came to Tonal Theory. In fact his masterwork Harmonielehre is remarkable for the fact that 95% of it is devoted to demonstrating his deep understanding of the subject. Only towards the end does he say that (in effect) Tonality has nothing more to say. And he proposed a programme for taking music in another direction.
I believe Wittgenstein said somewhere (words to the effect of) "No matter how shakey the ladder you climb - when you reach the plateau of truth you will recognise it as such and then you can kick the ladder away".
Ultimately the issue about imposing constraints is about enforcing non-adherence to previous constraints and preventing the use of worn out gestures. If it takes you to a better place you will know it and will have been worthwhile. But you shouldn't mistake the ladder for the end product.
Serialism was a shakey ladder, deservedly kicked away, but it did open up new vistas for "serious" music. You could say the same about Minimalism.
So is L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry a pile of poo?
Probably too soon to say.
|