[Janice D. Soderling]

Remember the threads on Poetry's Flarf issue and the New Yorker's My dick is an elk or sumpen like that.

Well, check this out:
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/p...th_int erview

Against Expression": Kenneth Goldsmith in Conversation

PS I don't know how to do that little link hide thingy. I hope this doesn't stretch our screens.

[Jayne Osborn]

Blimey, Janice, I was starting to lose the will to live, reading this

[Gail White]

Just when you think things can't get any worse, you find interviews
with guys like this in respectable places. As the saying goes, no matter how cynical you get, you can't keep up.

I have, however, thought of a title for my next book:

"SPAM: Poems Deleted from my E-Mail"

[ChrisGeorge]

I first read the title of this thread to read, "Your shopping lists might be punishable."

[Gregory Dowling]

Just point your mouse to the left of Goldsmith's shin and you can find an alternative (entertaining and enlightening) interview with Richard Wilbur.

Having read Goldsmith's opening sentence, "The best thing about conceptual poetry is that it doesn't need to be read", I'm quite happy to take him at his word. And after a quick scroll down the page, the same goes for the interview. Life is just too short, after all. It's too short, also, to spend time getting upset about the fact that such an interview appears on a reputable site.

[Will Gourley]

For art from a putative shopping list, try to find "Receipt" by Big Poppa-E.

Cheers wkg
There's no accounting for taste

[Rory Waterman]

It's all so liberating, man.

[R. Nemo Hill]

I thoroughly enjoyed the interview.

Ed writes: "(1) You do realize how appallingly silly and narcissistic that sounds, don't you? (2) I gather that you are completely stuck on yourself, but what's in it for us to be stuck on yourself?"

Sorry, Ed, but I think most of the response to KG on this thread are more full of themselves than anything that he says in the interview. If anything, he gives himself and his contemporaries a bit too much credit for something that has been going on for a very long time. But in general he seems to have a light touch and a good sense of humor. And there is no denying that ubiquitous technology has given a shot in the arm to conceptualism in all its forms, especially the verbal. One can surrender to that fact or one can resist it: but to ignore it with shock and outrage is to remove oneself from the history of thought and creation entirely.

I am not going to take the bait here and start a flame war...but really folks, it's a mighty big sandbox and there is plenty of room for the kids playing in its far corners. Duchamp would be amused.

Fluxus lives!
Nemo

[Andrew Frisardi]

Originally Posted by R. Nemo Hill

I thoroughly enjoyed the interview.

Ed writes: "(1) You do realize how appallingly silly and narcissistic that sounds, don't you? (2) I gather that you are completely stuck on yourself, but what's in it for us to be stuck on yourself?"

Sorry, Ed, but I think most of the response to KG on this thread are more full of themselves than anything that he says in the interview. If anything, he gives himself and his contemporaries a bit too much credit for something that has been going on for a very long time. But in general he seems to have a light touch and a good sense of humor. And there is no denying that ubiquitous technology has given a shot in the arm to conceptualism in all its forms, especially the verbal. One can surrender to that fact or one can resist it: but to ignore it with shock and outrage is to remove oneself from the history of thought and creation entirely.

I am not going to take the bait here and start a flame war...but really folks, it's a mighty big sandbox and there is plenty of room for the kids playing in its far corners. Duchamp would be amused.

Fluxus lives!
Nemo

Wholier-than-thou?

[Janice D. Soderling]

Duchamp would be amused.

He is probably laughing himself silly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/a...evolution.html