Flarf Response

"I reject out of hand the notion that poets of my generation are practicing mere experimental aestheticism."
-Some dude on the Flarf page

As interesting as I find flarf poetry, I take severe issue with this quote. While the principles of flarf are interesting in the same manner that Dadaism and Situationism and Futurism and other absurd art movements are interesting, I disagree with that statement because Flarf is exactly experimental aestheticism. Perhaps the argument here is against the label "mere", but Flarf isn't poetry in the same way that Charles Bukowski or Rimbaud is poetry; it's an experiment in the same vein as The Treachery of Images is. I look at that painting and it makes me want to think, to turn things over in my head and maybe arrive at the same conclusion that Magritte did, but it doesn't make me feel anything, which is ultimately the point of art. All forms of art and self expression are really just enhanced means of communication: watch a group of musicians improvise together and it's clear they're doing a whole hell of a lot of talking without words. But looking at The Treachery of Images doesn't make me feel anything beyond vague fascination. Compare this with, say Starry Night, which is a painting that makes me want to weep, and it's clear that art can function either intellectually or viscerally, but it's much better when it functions viscerally.

This is an opinion though; i'm sure there are people for whom Flarf causes intense emotional reaction. i don't want to meet these people; their conception of art is so radically different than mine that it has defeated the purpose of art: rather than communicating, it's alienating.

But after hating on it so hard, i have to admit that i do enjoy the fact that Flarf came into being as a protest against the commodification and asinine web exploitation of poetry. reactionary art can sometimes be incredible, but i still maintain that without an actual emotional base, Flarf is exactly what the above, unnamed gentleman is claiming it isn't', experimental aestheticism. Not that this is always bad, experimental aestheticism gave us Impressionism, graffiti, etc. But to try and pass it off as a legitimate form of poetry is deceptive and to me, incredibly irritating. Of course there are considerations of form and rhythm, but, as i'm sure everybody in class is going to prove, all you really have to do is put shit into google and then randomly copy and paste it into a word document. Flarf makes poetry further and more needlessly esoteric, if it's going to survive as an art form, poets should strive for clarity and simple beauty that can be understood by people that don't necessarily understand phrases like "experimental aestheticism".

But maybe that's what they want. Maybe they want a further secret handshake into the art world, to create further exclusivity and continue poetry's already solipsistic tendencies. But my honest response towards this is aversion, because it so radically diverges from what i believe art should do. Then again, maybe that's a good thing.