Poetry and "Web 2.0"
I've been attending the international writing by degrees writer's conference, sponsored by Bighamton University. Had a great conversation with author Suzanne Paola who I picked up at the airport - a very kind and fascinating lady. This morning there was a discussion panel that consisted of editors and publishers of a number of the nation's bigger on-line poetry journals such as drunken boat and Blackbird.
A very bright group of amazing people, which consisted of folks from numerous geographies and backgrounds, the primary thrust was the great sense of optimism surrounding the Internet's ability to foster community among poets.
I think I may have inadvertently and mildly offended some on the panel when I pointed out towards the tail end of the discussion that it seemed like we are simply taking the concepts that drive a print-journal world - that is groups of editors and "gatekeepers", who in turn dictate what constitutes quality work based on their subjective aesthetic - and moving it on-line with traditional presentation (even if the art itself is more interactive), when so much more is possible.
I asked the panel if any of them knew of digg and I think only one or two had; I briefly (and probably poorly in a pre-caffeinated stupor) explained how the next Internet paradigm eliminates traditional on-line media and instead puts the lunatics in charge of the asylum. It lets them pick and write the headlines through a vaguely democratic system (though how democratic is a contested point). It's a system that will likely replace myself as a technology writer, and it's something that could replace the idea of an on-line 'zine, poetry journal, or other art depository. Or at least the way work is cultivated and presented.
Nothing new to those of us in tech, but it seemed a somewhat foreign notion in this discussion. Perhaps not foreign, but not fully understood in the context of the point I was trying to make.
I could tell my use of the term "gatekeeper" irked a few of them, as it fostered images of the very traditions - and people - they went on-line to avoid. I didn't push harder because I didn't want to be a buzzkill to the celebration of poetry's first on-line steps.
But I keep having thoughts of a poetry depository run solely by the users. With the individual user accounts, chat & forum tools you'd see at places like Broadband Reports, but where instead of chatting about games, technology, etc.; users can chat, submit poetry and work on their craft. The main difference from other poetry forums would be a main monthly compilation that was selected, edited, and produced solely by the democratic will of the users of the website. Not by academics, who remain the pilots of poetry publication in its first on-line incarnation - and not by editors.
The joy of moving from "push" media to interactive media is supposed to be the interaction. This is a two way pipe.
The web 2.0 meme (define) annoys me because it tried to quantify what's a natural evolution; but the next generation of community-centric website development will ultimately apply to poetry and other art. The panel concluded with the sentiment that as long as art is being created - all is well. But I felt my point wasn't quite understood.
If we're going to celebrate the wonderful way the Internet fosters communities, breaks down geographical barriers, allows amateur work to flourish - why are we atill sticking to the idea of traditional presentation methods where one person - or a group of people - determines what constitutes quality?
Why not let all the poets (even the bad ones, the crude, rude and sad ones) democratically decide that for themselves? Perhaps not an original thought, but it's certainly not fully explored yet.