Working
toward a Personal definition of ‘Visual Poetry’
This is a reflection on the following essay I read by Fil Ieropoulos:
Ieropoulos’
essay was a brilliant overview of the definitions of poetry-film of
film-poetry. Before I read this essay I didn’t know that those genres existed,
although I did sense that comparisons were often drawn between the two art
forms, especially in my own mind. He quite certain about the distinction
between ‘film poetry’ nd poetry film’ even commenting on the use of hyphens;
however I may be quite lax in my use of these terms.
I don’t like that
in the 1920s, film-makers wanted visual poetry to be separate from poetry and
confined within the elements of film. As Ieropoulos writes in his essay that
artists like Dulac and Velluc felt ‘film should be a primarily visual language
and that if there is any influence of poetry within it then this must be on the
actual picture’ which I find difficult to agree with. Why shouldn’t the script
or the sound of the film be influenced by poetry and still considered ‘film
poetry’? Artists at that time tried the make ‘poetry-film’ fit tot a certain
criteria for example they rejected the use of inter-titles. However, I do have
to remember that that at the time, these films were brand new and experimental
– perhaps people felt the need to define what they were, even the film-makers
themselves.
To me, this kind
of attitude is one that creates a separation and hierarchy among media. It
seems condescending to me to make such a definition when the lines of different
art movements are certainly blurred.
Some of the ideas
in this essay made me think that I had to confine myself to purely looking at
moving image. I would have to fit a certain fragmented style of filming and
while I am still eager to investigate linear and non-linear narratives, I don’t
want to feel committed to either one just yet.
For example, I think of a film like ‘Room’ as visual poetry despite is
being a linear narrative and it being scripted whereas film-makers from the
1920s might disregard it. What is poetry to me might not be poetry to someone
else. What makes a feature film specifically not ‘visual poetry’, the fact that
is is more widely appreciated by audiences? That kind of thinking is elitist
and not productive. This is why before I start planning my film I am eager to
make a personal definition on ‘visual poetry’.
When I wrote my
proposal, I found lots of resources on experimental film, yet I have found that
my ideas have changed more quickly than I have been able to write up my
research in my sketchbook. Is not a photograph visual poetry? A painting? Why
should I stop myself from investigating these art forms too. I am not studying
art next year and I have a limited time with the resources at Weston College.
This project could be used as an avenue to experiment with loads of different
mediums.
Poetry is
heavily personal: it is typically from the viewpoint of the writer or persona.
It is biased and often telling of a personal experience. It awakens an emotional ‘response’ in the
reader, which the reader may struggle to realise at first. To me, this is the
common factor when I personally define a piece of visual media as ‘visual
poetry’.
