This chapter was a mixed bag for me. On one hand, the idea of being able to break down and identify pieces of a greater picture and mixing and matching to create a poem is incredibly cool. On the other, reducing any creative process to algorithmic roots feels somehow like a part of what makes it 'art' is inevitably going to be lost.
A fair comparison, I feel, is making a collage. Take the collage piece created during last week's class for example: we have made a new, fresh, and transformative creation based upon the works displayed in the gallery, and that transformation has value in of itself. But is it art? I'd argue that transplanting the soul of the original work is impossible, and that it has instead been overwritten with the intentions of the new creator.
Tangent aside, it's a deeply interesting topic. Generating poems based upon pieces and half-stanzas is a very cool side project, but again, I'd argue even if it's coming from 'you' it's still not art. The process to me is significantly more meaningful and relevant than the product, and by shortcutting or eliminating the process, the product loses value.
I agree that the chapter was a mix. I felt too, as though there are more positive as well as more negative aspects to the idea of combinatory poems. Great post.
ReplyDelete