
Aram Saroyan and the Art of the One-Word Poem - anarbadalov
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/art-of-one-word-poem/
======
pmoriarty
I've never read so many words about one word.

~~~
coolgeek
Word.

------
gcuth
I have 'lighght' as a tattoo on my ribs. No regrets.

------
thelean12
The other major thread here as of writing is too focused on comparisons. I'll
avoid that all together by saying this:

This poetry is not a worthwhile effort, and the analysis of it is even less
worthwhile.

Maybe Aram Saroyan can be praised for convincing people that his poetry is
meaningful and deep, when in reality he probably just spent 2 minutes writing
"crickets" however many times on the page while laughing to himself that
people were going to pay money for it.

~~~
goto11
I'm sure he was chuckling to himself when writing "crickets" down.

But a lot of the criticism here seem to think he is somehow _cheating_ the
reader with these minimalist word-games. As if he is _pretending_ there is a
deeper meaning than there really is and therefore deceiving the reader. If
someone enjoys the poetry it must surely be because they have been tricked!

The unstated assumption is that poetry is _supposed to be_ serious, difficult
to write, and having many layers of complex meaning, requiring hard work to
decipher, and above all, not allowed to be fun.

Another streak is people getting angry at what they think other people might
hypothetically think about them if they don't enjoy the poetry.

Where does this come from? I don't know. Possibly bad high-school English
teachers. But I can't see how Saroyan is to blame for thees weird notions.
Poetry have always been a vehicle for jokes and memes and koans and absurdist
humor. Printed poetry opened the possibly of having fun with the visual
presentation of the text.

But it is amazing to me that anyone can look at "cricket" and get offended.
"There is a joke in the poetry! I have been cheated! I demand my money back!"

------
aimor

        wat

~~~
goto11

      *crickets*

------
ARandomerDude
We went from Shakespeare to "lighght." It's hard to see that as anything other
than a decline.

~~~
fiblye
There's room for many kinds of art in this world. Minimalism has earned its
own space.

~~~
tgv
That requires a lot of goodwill from the reader: "I'm going to try to find
this interesting because it's supposed to be a poem."

Suppose you find a scrap of paper with the text (which I'm sure you haven't
seen before):

    
    
        I withdraw and wait.
        This is time that doesn't get lost:
        each minute becomes future.
        I am an ocean of waiting,
        in a waterproof envelope of now. (*)
    

Or you'd find a scrap of paper with the text

    
    
        lighght
    

Isn't there a difference? I can appreciate the attempt in the latter, I think
the "cricket" one is at least funny, but can it withstand comparison with
Shakespeare? It's not a coincidence that the the article starts with the
mention of Oulipo: it's word play, the joy of expressing under extreme
constraints, rather than poetry.

(*) Source: Eb (English: Ebb) by M. Vasalis, in a loose translation.

~~~
fiblye
Here are two paintings.

[1] [https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450/sciencde-
and-c...](https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450/sciencde-and-
charity-e1535002340741.jpg)

[2] [https://painting-planet.com/images/9/image293.jpg](https://painting-
planet.com/images/9/image293.jpg)

Painting [1] demonstrates a mastery of light, shadow, and color. It's
complicated. It's full of detail. Anybody who walked by this in an art gallery
would surely think, "This person is a great artist" and move on. Painting [2]
will most likely be called a great painting by most people, but that's because
most people have seen it at some point and know who painted it. This person
has a massive reputation as one of the greatest artists of all time. People
who walk by this in a museum will stop and snap a picture and take a minute to
really look at it because, hey, this guy is super famous, so he must be great.

But [2] is clearly painted much faster than [1] and has far less fine detail.
A person who doesn't know anything about painting [2] or the artist behind it
will probably say something like "anyone could do this. Even I could do
that"\--but it was a revolutionary style at the time _because_ people didn't
do it. [1] was merely fitting into a more established framework of art and was
far less likely to blow minds, even though a typical person without
foreknowledge might be more likely to compliment [1] on being a "good"
painting than [2].

And many might know this, but [1] was painted by the artist when he was a
child. [2] was painted by him as a full-fledged artist as an adult. The
reduction in realism and complexity in favor of abstraction was an intentional
progression for his work.

These simple poems don't need to be as complex as Shakespeare. They're not
trying to be. They serve an entirely different purpose. People are still
writing long, epic poems even today, but it's a vastly explored field of art
and demand for new material in that style is quite low. Not every one word
poem is going to be mind-blowing, but some definitely grab some interest.
There are plenty of people, even well-read people, who find Shakespeare
tedious. There are people who think a page with nothing but "cricket" is
fluff. Both kinds of art can coexist.

~~~
rbecker
> Both kinds of art can coexist.

But do they? In your typical museum, what kind of art do you find in the post-
WWII section? I've been to a few, and to say it doesn't compare to what came
before doesn't even begin to describe it.

As for the "mind-blowing" quality - you can only turn a urinal on its side so
many times before the trick gets old. Where do you go after that, after you've
heroically broken with all the accumulated knowledge of past artists in
whatever is the opposite of "standing on the shoulders of giants"?

~~~
fiblye
It depends on the museum. The curators decide what they want.

I've been to museums full of nothing but plain black swabs across a canvas.
I've also been to ones with nothing but realistic scenery paintings made
within the past 20 years.

Eventually, there'll be another revolutionary trend in art and people will
yearn for the minimalist abstract stuff that fills museums today.

~~~
SuoDuanDao
>Eventually, there'll be another revolutionary trend in art and people will
yearn for the minimalist abstract stuff that fills museums today.

I fervently hope so. Call me uncultured, but I prefer art that has aesthetic
value.

------
blackbear_
Bullshit.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

Oh hey, I am more talented than I thought! Now let me write a 4000-words
column explaining why you obtuse boors cannot even begin to comprehend the
depth of this deceptively simple thought.

~~~
non-entity
Well they seem to have gotten you very emotional about it so I'd say they
succeeded at something.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
Punching him in the nuts would have been even more 'successful' but that's by
the bye. Of greater relevance is you've mocked him without addressing his
point.

~~~
non-entity
Theres no real "point" to address. The GP simply repeats an expletive several
times before they build a strawman they can use to insult the author. This is
the textual version of a temper tantrum.

