Nico Vassilasics’ “Staring at Vispoetics” was strange. I get that the idea is to think of how we use language and text in a different and more abstract manner, but a majority of the piece just sounds so generically philosophical and contrived. Reading it just feels a little like reading any other abstract conspiracy theorists’ work; for example, when the author writes “Is a letter real? Does it qualify as a real world, real time object? Is a letter a totally hypothetical entity? Is it just a non-physical mental object? Are words real?” I just don’t understand how this is innovative if it has all already been said.
What I can appreciate about the word is the author’s idea that the alphabet can be classified as visual poetry, and that “writing is the drawing of what and how we think, and within that writing, images accrue, the letters themselves, drawn, or otherwise printed, are illustrating or reproducing our thought.” I thought that was an interesting way to view written language. This made me think of an author creating a finished piece of work similarly to a painter filling a canvas. Basically what I am trying to say is this: I’m torn on my opinion of this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment