I think that concrete poetry seems to have, as far as I can see, come to a kind of a dead end. It doesn't seem to be going any further than it went in its high period of about five or six years ago.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Well, probably I was fed up with concrete poetry. There was a lot of bad concrete poetry and besides, it was confused with visual poetry which was completely different.
Poetry and fiction have grieved for a century now over the loss of some vitality which they think they see in a past from which we are by now irrevocably alienated.
And, I mean, I think poetry does need to be met to some extent, especially, I guess, 19th century poetry, and for me, it's just been so worth the effort. It's like I'm planting a garden in my head.
Written poetry is worth reading once, and then should be destroyed. Let the dead poets make way for others.
The cliche is dead poetry.
That poetry survived in its formal agencies finally, and that prose survived to get something said.
I think that the job of poetry, its political job, is to refresh the idea of justice, which is going dead in us all the time.
I think there is a poem out there for everyone, to be an entrance into the poetry and a relationship with it.
Poetry's always dead, you know? You don't realize how good poetry is until 15 years later.
Concrete poets continue to turn out beautiful things, but to me they're more visual than oral, and they almost really belong on the wall rather than in a book. I haven't the least idea of where poetry is going.