Everyone's a Poet: Criticizing the Poetry Slam

Birol · Aug 6, 2007

Shady Lane · Aug 6, 2007

I don't think I'm able to distinguish good poetry from bad.

I'm not quite artistic-minded.

poetinahat · Aug 6, 2007

Thanks for the link, Lori. I hope this thread gets a lot of discussion, because I don't trust my initial response to the article, which is that it's rubbish.

The way I read it, he's saying that even an open event like a poetry slam can't be all-inclusive because of the consumerist, exclusionary society in which we live. Therefore, even if we choose to participate in something like a poetry slam, we're still not doing anything constructive or helping to shape our culture. In other words, "Sure, it sucks that art is only for Artists, but get used to it; you're all drones anyway. You can't do anything about it, though, so don't feel too bad."

I think he's trying too hard to come up with a thesis, and I disagree with the one he's presented. By God, don't just sit there -- do something!

No, not everyone will be Great, but everyone can have a go. The notion that art is a waste of time for most people seriously angers me. Everybody deserves the chance to Get Culture. They can reject it if they want, but they shouldn't be excluded.

Of course, I may have read the article wrong.

Again, I would love for this discussion to blossom. Thanks, Lori.

poetinahat · Aug 7, 2007

Shady Lane said:
I don't think I'm able to distinguish good poetry from bad.

I'm not quite artistic-minded.

But does poetry sometimes get a reaction from you? That's more interesting - and infinitely more useful - than whether it's arbitrarily good or bad.

People laugh about the "I don't know art, but I know what I like" cliché, but it's not all wrong. If art gets to me, then there must be good in it for me. If it doesn't, then there may not be anything there. Just because somebody else thinks I should like it doesn't mean they're right. But the thing is that it goes both ways; if I don't like an artwork, that doesn't make it bad. It just means that it doesn't do anything for me.

Technique is something else; poor craft may produce good art, but it's not so likely. As with anything else, the better control one has over the tools, the more likely the result will be as desired (and the more creative the artist can be).

Of course, there's another aspect to art, and that's the analytical aspect of trying to look at it from the artist's view -- trying to figure out what she was getting at, and how. That's interesting to some people, and not so to others.

Sorry for the lecture, Shady; and I apologise doubly if I'm telling you things you already know. I just hope you're not selling yourself short.

blacbird · Aug 7, 2007

Well, I'm not at all sure that everyone "can give it a go". I've attended several of these events, on invitation of some friends, though I've never been tempted to participate in one. After attending them, I never will be. Poetry-slam poetry is more performance art than poetry. And that's fine if you're good at performance art. Most of the people I've seen perform at these events are either actors or musicians. It's a pretty small sector of the spectrum of poetry that works at these things, usually angst- or anger-laden diatribe, constructively disguised behind a certain admirable level of word-craft (though not always even that). Which is okay if that's what you're into.

But it's hardly an inclusive or even inviting venue if you're not.

caw

poetinahat · Aug 7, 2007

Fair enough, blacbird -- and it's easy to envision these events as being cliquish klatsches of beatniks and fops, where newcomers need brass cajones to claim a turn at the mike. If the article is criticising the dynamics of poetry slams as they seem to exist, then I've missed the point, in which case the rest of this post doesn't bear reading.

ETA: On re-reading, it looks like that's exactly what the article's saying: Poetry slams and open-mike nights create their own exclusionary cultures; they have to, in order to appeal to the people who frequent them. So they really don't encourage Everyman to produce poetry.

I wonder whether it's significant that the author is a grad student at Berkeley, where one would expect to find a hotbed of coffeehouse culture. Would his impressions have been different if he'd been from, say, Nebraska (where Ted Kooser, former US Poet Laureate, is an English professor at U Nebraska-Lincoln)? In fairness, Lincoln may have more boho java shops than Berkeley; I have no idea.

The slam and open-mike simply open up a new area of creative privilege for a relatively few. Insofar as these events simply adjust to the exclusionary cultural system and indeed depend on it for their own 'bohemian' and 'alternative' allure, they function as conservative social devices. They simply make a bad situation bearable. In a society in which all had a stake in cultural production would poetry slams and open-mikes even exist?

(The original post has been removed; it's irrelevant now.)

Puma · Aug 7, 2007

Did you notice the date on the article - 1993? There may be a little perspective adjusting necessary.

IMO, his article was basically BS and didn't really say much at all. Start dissecting it, critical thought by critical thought, and there's not much there. I also had the feeling he was flip-flopping in his viewpoint.

I'm not going to get into discussing my viewpoint on the topic he presented - I have too definite opinions on the subjects. Puma

Shadow_Ferret · Aug 7, 2007

poetinahat said:
But does poetry sometimes get a reaction from you? That's more interesting - and infinitely more useful - than whether it's arbitrarily good or bad.

Not only can't I tell good poetry from bad poetry, I don't understand modern poetry enough to even get a reaction. To me it's just weird.

swvaughn · Aug 7, 2007

Well, gosh. That there guy sure does use a whole passell of big words. Gee, he must be important.

I guess I'll go buy my movies and novels and shuffle through my colorless life, unable to influence the culture in which I live. Heaven forbid we should have poetry in bars. Anything more complicated than karaoke and our poor consumer-driven heads might explode.

Dude. This guy used a lot of fancy language to say "you all just don't understand us (with the implied "me")".

Jamesaritchie · Aug 7, 2007

Poetry

I've been to two poetry slams. There won't be a third. Rubbish, and not a bit of real poetry to be heard.

poetinahat · Aug 7, 2007

I hope skelly gets over to this thread. His poem about Bertolt Brecht indicates to me that he knows pretty well what this writer was up to.

William Haskins · Aug 7, 2007

here's an article that appeared in the local paper last week, for a more contemporary (if biased in favor) account.

http://www.austin360.com/arts/content/arts/stories/xl/2007/08/0802xlcover.html

i personally think poetry slams bear little resemblence to poetry and i find them, more often that not, to be absurd forays into identity politics.

the test for me is whether or not a poem works on the page. the direct relationship is between the words and the reader's mind. this is not to say that poetry spoken aloud cannot be enjoyable. but if it depends solely on inflection and (all too often manufactured) emotion to carry it off, that's a parlor trick, not poetry.

in short: slams = theatre, not poetry.

below · Aug 7, 2007

Interesting. I think the article could have made some of the same points without the pretentious language, and without explaining why he thinks that poetry slams and open mike nights need to do more politically/socially, and what perchance that is... Plenty of these art organizations also do things like run food drives.

Also, he talks about the exclusionary nature of slams, but not in the way that I think really needs to be up for debate.

Bona fide Slams are about performance, about throwing down. It's like "numbers", upping the ante. It's poetry that's written to be antagonistic and angsty, sometimes political. But it's also closed off poetry to vast numbers of people who may be good writers but not necessarily performers, or whose poetry is better read silently, than called out.

There's also the whole issue of the poetry slam "ranking" people's performances. Certain kinds of performances are valued far above the actual text being read. It stops being literary and starts being spoken word art, which is fine - only this is now the most popular form of "poetry" and can, if we're not careful, limit what kind of work is valued as poetry. Or limit what is acceptable in the spoken word/open mike communities. It's similar to how, today, singers on "American Idol" need to belt and do a "money note" to be considered good, and other styles of singing are no longer appreciated for their own sake. Plus, I just think it's BS for us to turn a poetry reading into the "it's got a good beat and you can dance to it" section of American Bandstand.

Reverend Jen, a performance and visual artist in New York, had a really great take on one of the big New York poetry slams, and created a "anti-slam" that has been running for several years. I'll append that.

below · Aug 7, 2007

Reverend Jen writes about the start of the "anti-slam" here: http://www.revjen.com/antislam/index.html

Here's another look at what happens at these events.

I imagined the open mic was something like the audition montage you see in films about the performing arts. The audition in this style of montage is always an open call attended by a variety of kooky types – the old man doing a profanity-laden monologue, the off-key singer. Behind his table, the director rolls his eyes à la Simon Cowell, reminding us that these people are terrible! I presumed that, like the characters attending these auditions, open mic artists were one of two kinds: Either they believed talent scouts were on the prowl and they might get discovered, or they had no plans for stardom and were simply performance opportunists—the kind who hog the karaoke mic. At the two open mics I attended—Collective Unconscious’ and Surf Reality’s—there were representatives of both camps. But there were also some acts that were harder to categorize. Open mic performance, with its element of impromptu masquerade, can be innovative. It can also be painful to watch. But there is something bizarrely subversive about gathering together the elderly, the eccentric, the fame-thirsty, and those working on their manner in power point presentations for six-minute slots of the good, the very good and the very, very bad.

Big Mike, a regular, takes the stage first, after asking me if he can take an ‘adult photo’ of me with one of the two Polaroids he wears around his neck. (I decline.) He then performs an eardrum-assaulting monologue from a sheaf of papers. Reverend Jen’s chihuahua writhes in pain. Next come a rash of stand-up comics whose sets are rife with jokes of the ‘why do women always ask you if they look fat?’ variety. One comic with a particularly mainstream sensibility directs his complaints about women to a John Waters type in the front row, whose arch replies prompt much hilarity from the regulars. A guy with floppy hair arrives fresh from acting class to do an ‘act like an animal’ exercise with a Sam Shepard monologue. Someone performs cunnilingus on the mic. Not many people are playing acoustic guitars, but those who do also want to read poetry.

* * *

The open mics at Collective Unconscious and Surf Reality do not place limits on what may be performed—as long as it doesn’t go over the time limit or involve harassing audience members. This makes for a collision of cultures, mostly between the regulars, whose aesthetic is more edgy, and those who wind up at the show with the help of Google and want to tell lawyer jokes. Reverend Jen appears to appreciate the individual freakishness of each guest on the stage, however, and the no-heckling ground rules ritualize each performer’s acceptance into the club. One young man praised this community aspect after playing the guitar and singing about rainbows and people getting ‘so damned high.’ Jumping up and down during the applause, he exclaimed, ‘Man, I fucking love you guys! Every fucking Sunday, man – every fucking Sunday!’

‘This is Church. It’s the only place where you can really be yourself – no place else.’ So says Lloyd Floyd, a comic and Surf Reality regular who describes himself as having been ‘born on stage.’ The more I watched, the more this religious metaphor seemed apt – especially during the confessional acts.

A put-together woman in her thirties takes the stage with a didgeridoo-player who appeared earlier. ‘Hit it,’ she commands. The regulars cheer. She holds a book called Becoming Attached, and reads a phrase describing the ideal mother as ‘warm.’ This sends the woman into a neurotic tailspin: ‘My. Mother. Was. COLD!’ She appears about to cry, wailing that she ‘can’t become attached to anything.’ The audience is quiet, uncertain just how tongue-in-cheek this is. Then, from the back row, a few laughs ring out. The woman smiles wanly and then laughs hysterically. The performance is half therapy, half comedy, and its dynamism depends in part on her being known by the regulars. This group energy – and acceptance – is clearly what keeps many coming back.

That is from the Morning News. http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/new_york_new_york/the_church_of_the_open_mic.php

endless rewrite · Aug 7, 2007

I try and keep an open mind about these things, I've seen too many involving angry men who need their hair washing, ranting about politics and not getting laid (hint, try a nice aftershave and not wearing foisty, too tight, black jeans) But I am very much looking forward to an upcoming poetry slam in which all participants are from two old people's residential homes. They have been working with a poet as their writer in residence and producing some great work. Wonder if there will be any hecklers? I've been working as a writer in residence in the same area but with primary school kids and hope to have both groups going up against each other at a future poetry slam.

davids · Aug 7, 2007

WOW great discussion-lots of interesting thoughts and then there is me-I do not give a shit! Getting to be a disturbingly common feeling I seem to be having recently-BTHOOM as in life in gereral

skelly · Aug 7, 2007

Thanks for the heads-up on this Rob. Missed it earlier.

I think this guy Brady's problem is his preconceived (and somewhat foppish) idea of what art is supposed to "be." He seems to be comparing these "poetry slams" (which I know nothing of, and really don't wish to, they sound absurd) to some sort of artistic "movement," like Imagism, or Surrealism.

Therefore in looking at slams and open-mikes, I am tempted to ignore their progressive element(the critique of culture)and emphasize their incomplete, apolitical and conservative elements. Such events are incomplete because they only indirectly identify the deficiencies of cultural production in society. These events are apolitical because they do not consciously point to anything beyond themselves; that is, they do not engage the social relationships supporting a culture of exclusion and passivity.

I don't know that poetry slams where intended to do these things. I think he his holding them to some standard towards which he is biased. I don't know that I agree with the notion that art should always come with a capital "A," that it must transcend. I DO agree with him when he says:

The slam and open-mike simply open up a new area of creative privilege for a relatively few.

I can believe that. A lot of the "fight the power" mentality is really "let's divide this all up in some manner such that I'm the power."

Interesting discussion, at any rate. I'm going to read this article over a few times and see if I missed anything.

Sarashay · Aug 7, 2007

I've actually been to slams, participated in slams and even won slams. I was a semi-finalist for the Atlanta Slam Team back in 2000. I know from slams.

The one thing that seems to get missed in all this is the fact that many regular readings are not JUST slams. The one I go to regularly, a little place in Decatur called Java Monkey, has a very inclusive reading every Sunday night that is extremely popular. They do the slams once a month and then cull the teams from the winners of those monthly slams.

Slam poetry is a subset of poetry in general. The limitations on time and the need to connect with and impress an audience place certain limitations on it. Then again, writing a sonnet or a villanelle requires boundaries as well. It doesn't mean that those forms are the be-all and end-all of what poetry can be.

I will admit, I did get soured on slams the last time I seriously participated in one. In the semi-finals for the Atlanta Slam Team, the poem that meant the most to me got the lowest score of the entire evening. The second piece I did (point were cumulative, thus we all got a second round) was a sort of parody piece with a punchline, and it scored better.

That's the point when I decided that slams weren't for me.

Slam is sort of the rock and roll version of poetry. Some people think it's utterly brilliant, some people think it's responsible for the downfall of civilization and some people think it just depends on how it's done.

As for that muddled article that started this discussion, I've long since lost faith in the myth of the Arteest. I subscribe to the radical notion that anybody who creates art is an artist. Even if you're not selling enough to quit your day job. If you are selling enough to quit your day job, you're a professional. And good on you. And, yes, I understand the annoyance of dealing with people who are acting like they're on the professional level when they're still on the day job level, but since there's no real harm done by incompetence in art (unlike other professions) you'll simply have to live with it.

Celia Cyanide · Aug 7, 2007

I have enjoyed the poetry slams I have been to. It is mostly performers, "spoken word artists" more than poets. While some of them can be exclusionary and pretentious, I like most of them. Those of you who say it's not real poetry are probably right. I suppose I don't like "real poetry."

blacbird · Aug 7, 2007

Poetry slams are to poetry what American Idol is to singing.

caw

Birol · Aug 7, 2007

blacbird said:
Poetry slams are to poetry what American Idol is to singing.

caw

Why?

You know, I have to be honest, I'm not exactly certain what makes a poetry slam, although I've pretty much agreed with every post poetinahat has made. How is a poetry slam different from an open mic night?

poetinahat · Aug 7, 2007

Celia Cyanide said:
I suppose I don't like "real poetry."

What does "real poetry" mean to you?

Is it a term you're using to divide the world between those who scoff at poetry slams and those who don't?

I hope what I write is, er, real. Who can tell me?

blacbird · Aug 7, 2007

Birol said:
Why?

You know, I have to be honest, I'm not exactly certain what makes a poetry slam, although I've pretty much agreed with every post poetinahat has made. How is a poetry slam different from an open mic night?

The competition aspect. A winner, and a lot of losers. The ones I've attended were early rounds of a tournament. I couldn't bear to attend the finals. There are national poetry slams, and I've seen a video documentary about these things, and the viciousness makes Simon Cowell look like Mr. Rogers.

caw

Celia Cyanide · Aug 7, 2007

poetinahat said:
What does "real poetry" mean to you?

Is it a term you're using to divide the world between those who scoff at poetry slams and those who don't?

It isn't a term I am using, really, which is why I have it in quotes. I am not sure why people think that the poetry at slams is not "real." It seems real to me, and those who are performing it. Sure, some of it is crap. That's what happens when you have an open mike, and allow people to perform. Some are going to be good, and some are not.

Sarashay · Aug 8, 2007

A poetry slam is a competition. Poets read and are scored by five judges (composed of volunteers from the audience) on a scale of 1 to 10. The high and low scores are dropped, making it a range from 3 to 30.

It's done in an elimination round style, so if you have, say, eight poets competing, the top four go to the next round, the top two from that round compete head to head and thus the winner is determined.

There are rules about performance--no props, no musical instruments and poems are limited to three minutes, maximum. If the poem goes over three minutes, one tenth of a point is deducted from the poet's score for each ten seconds over the limit.

High scores tend to go to people who are loud, dynamic and dramatic. Funny helps a lot, too.

I'm not sure how the judging is Simon Cowell-ish, since it's merely numerical and offered without comment.

Everyone's a Poet: Criticizing the Poetry Slam

Around and About

my name is hannah

Numbers are beautiful

Numbers are beautiful

Numbers are beautiful

Retired and loving it!

Court Jester

adrift

Numbers are beautiful

poet

Kickin it old school, posers beware

Shut Up and Write

Joker Groupie

Around and About

Numbers are beautiful

Joker Groupie

Shut Up and Write