i suppose i see works of
cinema, stage and television
much more often, in aggregate
as a critic, not as what seems
to me the more typical
audience member. i’ve no
problem with this, much as
i understand the necessity
of relating somehow to the
characters and story and
of believing in the whole
thing or giving yourself
into the world of the
work of art, whatever
it is. this that i am
relaying to you mostly
is just pretending to be
a poem, although a poem
i write is one that i say
is a poem, that seems the
only determining factor
for me, which is pretty
convenient and debatably
lazy. anyway, this, again,
is just an observation, or
a set of them, which i
appreciate this afternoon
for what i feel is its
lack of poetry, a
bunch of words cast
in a very low budget
production in a piece
that, with such flourishes
as enjambment (as
costume) and a virtual
virtual page (the set)
to have it be pretending
or acting as if a poem.
i like to think about the
difference between
assimilated facts like
this pretending to be
a poem versus something
i write believing in the poem
of it all as i write it, but there
is no real difference in the ways
i describe given that in my mind
simply to dub something one writes
a poem is to make it one. these
are simply facts for me, the way
in which i live them, and with
simplicity and ease placed
upon the page, thrown
into it as i type the
words, read through,
reread, make all of
whatever flourishes i
do to add the pretense
of poetry. and with
regard to my participation
in these art forms as
critic and/or audience
member (this is my way
to differentiate for you as
i do not often think of
myself while watching
movies or television
or dramatic productions
as floating, as i obviously
do, between most often a
critic, wondering as i watch
how it has been made, how
that creation either turns
me on or off and why, thinking
about the artistry and effort
of many individuals and the
vastly different role each had
in creation of what i'm watching.
but i am aware that i do this,
that i'm most often evaluating
in a bit of a traditionally critical
way (not as audience member
but with curiosity regarding
each part of the collaboration,
actively assessing each and
all as the piece unfolds), but
also sometimes getting just
caught in its world, that
original appeal of immersing
myself in the other worlds.
utilizing each piece as if it
were not really a means of
escape as much as a way
to get an education about
an art form or art itself or
the history of humankind.
i have become aware of these
simulatenous and back and
forth ways of experiencing.
it has become integral to
my life, these two ways of
experiencing the art forms.
and this is a way of being
that i am happy with, that
does me well, in my opinion,
and i cannot imagine dispensing
with one or the other way of
experiencing such things.
but i do clearly spend
most of my time,
i believe, outside
of the story as it is in
progressing, hovering
over it so as to obsess
and assess and relish
each and every part
made by each and
every individual, seen
and unseen, that
altogether make
a work of art.
as they are lived.
but what i can say
is i’m thrilled to be
on either side, so
i float around as critic
and audience participant,
sometimes simultaneously,
be more often probably focusing
more on one or the other, that is,
either concentrating wholly on the
world itself and feeling within that world
or as a critic noting each part that has
gone into it, observing and making
assessments, placing scores, and
making my little arguments
to justify whatever i think i know
or see based on these observations.
i think should leave it at that, these
words i’ve written about how i am
when i watch cinema, television or
stage production, so as to leave this
dudded up actor of a pretend poem
more statement and less opinion.
less a poem then a taking up of
the airwaves or of your time
to tell you something of me
without leaning on bias
and such. so there.
