One of the ongoing topics of discussion/argument throughout the class has been the issue of gratification — specifically, which is more important for performance poetry/literature? Is it what the writer feels or how the audience responds? Is it only a solitary feeling of pleasure that needs to be derived from a performance/text, or, as Shaun puts it, is mutual masturbation the better path to tread?
It is, of course, a sticky line to walk. Some feel that writing a piece of poetry strictly to evoke a positive response from an audience cheapens the writter to being little more than another player to the pezzonovante (read bourgeoisie/popular masses to those unfamiliar with the term) in an attempt to fit into popular or accepted culture, be it that of the majority or lesser-known slam groups and underground poet societies. Others that feel poetry and performance is intended to be a sharing of minds can be seen in certain lights to be a little too opinionated or egotistical (the Buffalo type — like me). Scholarly rhetoric and stylistics make the text dry or thin, at least that is how it appears. Examining both types, though, and reactions from audiences, I’ve come to the conclusion that we are asking the wrong question. It isn’t so much “Which is better?” as it is “Why can’t they be considered the same thing?”
Is it possible to make a point in a pleasurable way, that the audience can understand and appreciate? Of course. Is the driving need to be entertaining cheapening the position of the text? Not necessarily. Can we derive a lesson in social and/or moral responsibility from something that entertains us? Yes! Can we be entertained by poetry that is tightly structured according to rules and based around ideas and/or experiences that mean relatively nothing to us personally? Duh; of course! So, structured or slam (arguably they can be the same thing, but for the sake of argument, give me a break, alright?), free-verse or an English Sonnet (that follows all thirty some rules for them that exist), value can be found in just about anything — even the worst piece of poetry or prose can serve as a bad example.
So how do we go about judging a performance/text? Ultimately, the creator decides what method to use, and whatever they choose is relavent and correct according to their individual tastes. They can decide to judge for themselves the value of their work (which is a method that I use, leery of outside interference on my creative processes), in which case they themselves are the audience; or, they can transfer that power to an exterior audience, like with slam competitions. Neither way is inherently wrong, except in the case of opinion, to which everyone is entitled at least one. So if we can’t agree on which of these is right, can we at least agree to disagree?