ART RANT! ART RANT!

i really shouldn't but i just can't help myself. i'm lugging out my soap box and that's just that-

i've been noticing a horribly annoying tendency in artists, especially poets, to accuse others of plagiarism over the slightest similarity. and when i say slight, i mean SLIGHT! it's obnoxious. seems a lot of people in the world are convinced of their own originality and that they are so stunningly brilliant and unique that anything they may have in common with another person is somehow an act of theft on the part of the other. it is beyond ridiculous.

there's a blog i check up on that, for the sake of my own ease and happiness, i should really stop reading. but i go on torturing myself with this persons inane and pompous drivel because, at one time, i actually really admired her. i thought her writing was gorgeous and important and i felt really close to the work she was doing. but then i started noticing some rather severe crimes against art being committed on her blog- namely posting other people's poetry (famous dead people's poems) on her blog without giving proper credit i.e. the name of the poet underneath the poem! and when the compliments started rolling in about what a great writer she is, she did nothing to correct it. she let it ride and took credit for work that isn't hers. and a person who holds an MFA knows the importance of siting sources correctly and diligently. please.

then this morning, i stumble over to her blog to find her accusing someone else of stealing lines from her. she even supplied a link! audacity shining bright! pot calling the kettle black! to put it as mildly as i can, it's just... well... tacky. and since i'm not tacky (or at least not as tacky as she is), i will not post any links here about her. publicly shaming someone isn't cool, first off, and secondly, if you've got a real act of plagiarism to deal with there are proper channels for that. come on!

and just to put it out there- references to 'teeth' and 'milk' and 'brambles' and 'petticoats' ARE NOT UNIQUE IN POETRY! OH MY GOD! it's so commonplace that it's laughable! and i ain't saying i've never used those words before, i have. and i probably will again. they're beautiful words. but i don't get on my high-horse and accuse another person of something as serious as plagiarism for using the same words in one of their poems. it's just so ridiculous and wholly pathetic. oh, i am steamed! i mean SERIOUSLY! AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! this is why the majority of people in the world think poetry is stupid and a big annoying waste of time! this crap right here! I'M even annoyed with poetry right now because of this crap and i LOVE poetry! geez!

and i know... i should just stop reading this person's blog but i can't. i just can't. i have to keep reading it so that i can keep pointing this shit out and hopefully, one day, she'll realize that there are people in the world that aren't being fooled and maybe, MAYBE, hopefully, she'll wake up and stop all this (though i doubt she even knows my blog exists and, if she does, i'm sure she thinks i'm a twirp). i'd love to be able to go back to being a fan of her work but i just can't be someones fan when they're a bad person. my morality won't allow it. and presenting the work of someone who COMMITTED SUICIDE as your own does, in fact, make you a bad person. a weak person at best.

and i don't care that this particular offense i'm referencing was over 6 months ago, no correction or amends have been made and it still sickens me.

so for now, i suppose i'm a watch-dog. i'll get off my soap-box now and begin my day. snarl.

small observation...

being the total art-snob that i am, i've been intrigued by a certain strange phenomenon for the past year or so... poets (majority? maybe?) like bad art. weird, huh? of course i'm basing this almost completely on the art they choose to put on the cover of their publications (magazines, chapbooks, full-length manuscripts) and i'm only talking about living poets. most of the poetry publications i read are from small, independent presses where the poet would definitely have a say in what goes on the cover of their work... and i'm amazed by what gets chosen. i know i sound like a puffed up, pompous, art freak but it's actually so strange to me that i had to comment on it. i mean, poetry is art. do poet's only study their particular art form and not anyone else's? i mean, at the end of the day, a person likes what they like and that's sort of all there is to the story. art is preference. but what i liked when i was 15 definitely wasn't what i was in to when i was 25. and especially not after actually sitting my ass down at a school desk and learning art's history and the problems art contends with today. all this to say, our tastes evolve... we become more discerning, more concerned with quality and abstract notions like integrity, honesty, humility. the stuff that gets chosen to sit on the cover of poetry books is the first thing i see as a reader. that image is meant to convey something about the contents of the book itself. but if i trusted that, there's a lot of really great writing i would've missed out on. most of the art that gets picked is safe, not memorable... basically, the kind of art one would see hanging over the bed in a motel 6. that can't possibly be the parallel a poet would what to draw to their own work! so the art-snob sticks her head out and makes a plea... get good work for your covers!!!! if you are writing contemporary poetry, pair it with some contemporary art. and 'contemporary' means much, much more than just being alive right now.

and now i'll put the art-snob back in her box.