|
27 October 2004. In his blog entry for 25 October 2004, Geof Huth speaks of what he terms, "the three competences of a visual poet."
The first is, "the painter�s palette." This "refers to the visual poet�s control of the visual and non-verbal aspects of a visual poem. Robert Indiana, known primarily as a painter, is a good example of the type of visual poet most in control of the painter�s palette."
Next is, "the poet�s pen." This "refers to the visual poet�s control of the linguistic aspects of a visual poem. A clear exemplar of a visual poet most in control of the poet�s pen would be Apollinaire, who is now a famous textual poet to most of us."
Last is, "the printer�s fist." This has to do with "the visual poet�s control of the textual aspects of a visual poem (that is, of the visual aspects of the verbal elements of a poem). Good control of the printer�s fist shows an understanding of the shapes of letters and how those shapes affect meaning, shows the ability to place text in expressive contexts, and shows an ability to choose letterforms that deepen the meaning of the poem. Diter Roth�especially when he worked with text alone, without any words at all�clearly exemplifies the poet of the printer�s fist.
I picked up on this for two reasons. One is that Geof and I have an ongoing difference of opinion about how good a "printer's fist" I have. I agree that my "printer's fist" is not my chief "competence" as a visio-textual artist, but I think I have a reasonably good one. I'm not about to argue that here (albeit I'll no doubt come back to it), for my second reason interests me much more. It is that I'm a taxonomaniac, so can't help but "improve" . . . okay, "extend," Geof's no doubt intentionally simple taxonomy of competences. Mine extends Geof's competences, and connects them to all who combine textual and graphic material rather than just to visual poets (assuming, as I believe Geof assumes with me, that an artist can combine textual and graphic elements without being a visual poet).
First off, I'd divide Geof's "painter's palette" into three "sub-palettes," one for competence with color; one for competence with shapes; and one for competence with texture, or the way the paint acts as a material, or the canvas or equivalent of the canvas or whatever. I would consider each of these more important, by quite a lot, than the "printer's fist."
Of equal importance would be my three "sub-palettes" of Geof's "Poet's Pen": one for competence with the meaning of words (the most important for a visual poet, I am in a minority among visio-textual artists in believing); one for competence with the sound of words; and one for competence with equaphoration (which is mainly the use of metaphors, both explicit and implicit, and similes).
I do feel the Printer's Fist to be of value, but would add two full competences to Geof's three: "the Pluraesthete's Loom" and "the Architect's Ruler." The first is the competence concerned with weaving two or more expressive modalities together, of understanding what the words in a visual poem do to its visual appearance and vice versa--combinatory sense. The second is the competence concerned with unifying a work of art, of making a design that is coherent and balanced--in some final manner.
One can produce major art without having all or even the majority of these competences (and sub-competences), but I tend to think the very greatest visio-textual artist will have them all.
Disclaimer: I consider the above opening notes, not a finished statement. I also consider it Well Worth Thinking About!
|
|