Blog response to
Maria Damon: Was That "Different," "Dissident," or "Dissonant"? Poetry (n) the Public Spear: Slams, Open Readings, and Dissident Traditions
Of the readings we've had for this week, I'd like to focus on Maria Damon's essay on Poetry slams and other forms of public poetry.
The questions I want to ask are these:
1. Many cultures have long traditions of oral poetry, and with the "invention" of poetry slams, Western countries seem to have a relatively new-found love for them, as well. Obviously, the poem read aloud and the poem printed on the page are two completely different works. There seems to be a debate how (and whether!) this kind of poetry - written to be read aloud, to be performed - should be recorded for posterity. Printing alone cannot be the answer; however, even a sound recording takes away the element of variation, of mood, and of the interpretation of the text by the individual performer. Do we just accept the fact that oral poetry (especially slam poetry, which is often only performed a few times and then replaced by newer material) might be short-lived and will disappear over time, since our culture does not seem to have a strong tradition of orally passing on poetry? Or should we attempt to preserve such poems at the risk of losing much of what constitutes their actual value (variations through spontaneity, audience response, etc).
In an attempt to answer this, I do believe that it would definitely worthwhile to preserve such poetry, both in print and in sound recordings. While this may seem to some extent to alter the poem (paradoxically by preventing it from being altered, i.e. by its being put in print), there might be a way around it if we change the way we think about potery. Recording a reading of, say, a slam poem should not be perceived as the one correct way for the reading to happen, and not even as the bast way of all possible readings. What it can give us is 1) an example of the actual author reading his/her own work, and 2) a sort of basis from which others may create their own reading of this particular work. None of them should be considered as more or less correct than what came before (or what will come after). This way, the ability of change and growth inherent in the poem would be kept intact; in fact, the act of distribution might render the poem more "alive" than it would have been otherwise. The fact that many slam artists hand out recordings of their stage performances and that is it (at least in my experience at slams in Germany) an accepted practice to perform other slam poets' work at open readings (giving them credit, of course) seems to point in this direction, as well.
2. Damon references the documentary Chicks in White Satin as containing a moment of something banal turning into something profound. While I absolutely agree that this is possible (and sometimes even desirable), I wonder if there is a line that can/should not be crossed in poetry slams/public readings. Can anything successfully be read as poetry, if the performance makes up for the content? And is so, is this equally true for intentionally and untintentionally banal poetry (i.e. someone performing a reading of the ingredients list from a box of cereal vs. someone presenting a love poem filled with clichés)?
