There are people in the world who perform their poetry to a live audience. They are called 'slam poets' or 'beat poets.' These 'poets' are the worst sort of people to converse with. The problem is that they simply do not know how to talk about anything other than themselves. Actually, that's not entirely true: There are plenty of things that make these people intolerable.
I do not mean to be unfair. 'Slam poets' are not bad people. They are not mean people or ugly people. They undoubtedly live fruitful lives and experience great things in meaningful ways. How, then, is it possible for these people to do what they do. I cannot figure it out. When listening to these slams i am forced to question whether or not these 'poets' are capable of experiencing anything away from their total reliance on cliche. What I mean by this is: do these poets experience the world in terms of trite stereotypes, or do they simply express it through such? I'm not sure which is worse.
In case of the former we must almost pity the 'slam poet' for his/her retarded phenomenal capacity. Here, we are almost inclined to look at the 'slam poet' as something more primitive than the average human being; for what rational being would elect a life in which experience itself is reduced to the banal? Additionally, if we can consider experience as one of the many things that defines humanity, it seems that we ought to consider the 'slam poet' as something entirely different all together. Indeed, a set of creature somewhere between man and ape.
In the case of the latter we must also pity the slam poet, not for his/her retarded phenomenal capacity, but for his/her blithe ignorance. Only a wretched fool would attempt to put fetters on experience by representing it in terms of trite stereotypes. In this way, the 'slam poet' is no better than the 'racist' or the 'homophobe.'
Though it is still unclear which of these two possibilities is worse, it is clear that in either case the 'slam poet' is to be pitied. Of course, the entirety of this argument hinges on the notion that these wretched beasts cannot account for anything related to experience without deferring to the cliche in some manner, I am open to the possibility that there is some fool out there that is neither phenomenally retarded nor blithely ignorant and yet prefers to be labeled as 'slam poet.' This person clearly would suffer from some sort of undetermined ailment, for we must all agree that no man of sound health and reason would refer to himself as a monkey.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This was not as short as promised
Ha! This post was genius and I definately have a bias when it comes to this topic. Slam poetry is an art that, in my opinion, is an island away from poetry. They really don't have much in common, though the lines can be blurred sometimes. While I think there are some slam poets who are phenominal (not in the way you put it) I think the art itself is given a pass because of its relationship to the social economic underbelly of America. It's the same reason why Mya Angelu is considered a famous novelist: poor quality writing becomes acceptable if it is fighting a good social cause, and when it belongs to minorities it shares a protected status. The inherent tension between the academy of poetry--that is print--on the one side and 'street' poetry on the other is based on a kind of stereotype: white people control the former and all other minorities control the later. Therefore the academy feels to nervous to publicly judge the street faction. Whatever you say about it Slam Poetry shares a more direct relationship with the audience. That being said I fucking hate most of it for asthetic reasons just to start and then when you get into the politics it gets more obnoxious. Some Slam Poets are good, but the art form itself, I believe, is a safe-heaven for bad writing that isn't really writing, it's performance pandering to a pre-conceived urban elitism. That's my two cents, ya hear!
Post a Comment