A Transformation?

An interesting concept brought forth by Carr is the idea that your mode of writing can change your style of writing.  Carr cites Nietsche as a significant example of how technology can change the way literature is produced. Nietsche had bad eyesight and could no longer work. The solution was to use a typewriter. He began working again but his work was different, his writing became less elegant and more to the point, as if writing a telegraph. Carr believes the change in his writing style is due to the change in the mode of writing from pen and paper to typewriter. In my study of Oni Buchanan and the “Mandrake Vehicles” I cannot help but to wonder if this new mode of writing most commonly referred to as kinetic poetry will change the way poetry is written just as the typewriter changed Nietsche. If our brains are as malleable as Carr says, can we expect Buchannan and other kinetic poetry authors to mold into email-like writing?

On the one hand, it can be argued that the visual effects like flash animation and video imaging can adequately replace elevated rhetoric by conveying equal emotion, only through a visual format. On the other hand, it is true that most kinetic poetry I have found uses only basic rhetoric, presumably to make the animation the center focus.If this true, then it is rational to believe that poetry will decrease in quality while enhancing its visual effects.

 

 

This kinetic poem differs from Oni Buchannan’s poetry because it is read to you and it has no hidden words or meanings. It is simply a poem in which the words move around, a literal representation of ‘kinetic poetry’. Unlike “The Mandrake Vehicles” the animation is this poem does nothing to enhace the meaning of the words themselves. However, the authors of kinetic poetry cannot solely be held responsible. In his article, Carr argues that because we get much of our information from the internet, we are losing our ability to interpret what we read. We tend to skim long articles just to get the main points, but we don’t actually read them. This kinetic poem is no different. I have to admit the first time I saw it, my mind was more preoccupied with the moving letters than the poetry itself . Only after I wrapped my mind around the animation did I go back and read it word for word. Interpretation is fundamental to poetry. If, by reading technologically enhanced poetry from a screen, we lose our ability to interpret and take in all the meanings, then maybe kinetic poetry for the sake of moving words around is not such a good idea. Buchannan’s “The Mandrake Vehicles” avoids the mindless animation because her animation has meaning and is part of the poetry, not a mere actor acting out the words.

Advertisement