8 ms·

Aram Saroyan and the Art of the One-Word Poem

25 points by anarbadalov 6y ago

ARandomerDude 6y ago
We went from Shakespeare to "lighght." It's hard to see that as anything other than a decline.
- fiblye 6y ago
  There's room for many kinds of art in this world. Minimalism has earned its own space.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    On maximalism, english wouldn't be suitable, but I wonder if there are any agglutinative languages productive enough to generate a potentially infinite one-word poem? (the opposite would be an infinite number —easily done via implied cyclicity[1]— of single-grapheme poems, which probably requires an asiatic script) [1] are there any mobius-strip spin 1/2 fermionic stories? they'd reconnect, but with a twist, so every other reading has a different interpretation...
    - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
      There is a potentially infinite one-word poem in English actually, so long as one is allowed hyphens: "police" can be both a noun or a verb. 'Police-police' are police who police the police. Police whose job it is to police the police-police are police-police-police, etc. Any number of recursions would be possible. Regarding your idea of fermionic stories, I think King's Dark Tower series might be close, though I may be misunderstanding the concept...
      - psyc 6y ago
        Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo. Meaning that buffalo in Buffalo whom other buffalo in Buffalo do buffalo, also buffalo other buffalo in Buffalo that still other buffalo in Buffalo do buffalo.
  - tgv 6y ago
    That requires a lot of goodwill from the reader: "I'm going to try to find this interesting because it's supposed to be a poem." Suppose you find a scrap of paper with the text (which I'm sure you haven't seen before): I withdraw and wait. This is time that doesn't get lost: each minute becomes future. I am an ocean of waiting, in a waterproof envelope of now. (*) Or you'd find a scrap of paper with the text lighght Isn't there a difference? I can appreciate the attempt in the latter, I think the "cricket" one is at least funny, but can it withstand comparison with Shakespeare? It's not a coincidence that the the article starts with the mention of Oulipo: it's word play, the joy of expressing under extreme constraints, rather than poetry. (*) Source: Eb (English: Ebb) by M. Vasalis, in a loose translation.
    - fiblye 6y ago
      Here are two paintings. [1] https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450/sciencde-and-charity-e1535002340741.jpg https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450/sciencde-and-c... [2] https://painting-planet.com/images/9/image293.jpg https://painting-planet.com/images/9/image293.jpg Painting [1] demonstrates a mastery of light, shadow, and color. It's complicated. It's full of detail. Anybody who walked by this in an art gallery would surely think, "This person is a great artist" and move on. Painting [2] will most likely be called a great painting by most people, but that's because most people have seen it at some point and know who painted it. This person has a massive reputation as one of the greatest artists of all time. People who walk by this in a museum will stop and snap a picture and take a minute to really look at it because, hey, this guy is super famous, so he must be great. But [2] is clearly painted much faster than [1] and has far less fine detail. A person who doesn't know anything about painting [2] or the artist behind it will probably say something like "anyone could do this. Even I could do that"--but it was a revolutionary style at the time because people didn't do it. [1] was merely fitting into a more established framework of art and was far less likely to blow minds, even though a typical person without foreknowledge might be more likely to compliment [1] on being a "good" painting than [2]. And many might know this, but [1] was painted by the artist when he was a child. [2] was painted by him as a full-fledged artist as an adult. The reduction in realism and complexity in favor of abstraction was an intentional progression for his work. These simple poems don't need to be as complex as Shakespeare. They're not trying to be. They serve an entirely different purpose. People are still writing long, epic poems even today, but it's a vastly explored field of art and demand for new material in that style is quite low. Not every one word poem is going to be mind-blowing, but some definitely grab some interest. There are plenty of people, even well-read people, who find Shakespeare tedious. There are people who think a page with nothing but "cricket" is fluff. Both kinds of art can coexist.
- fnordian_slip 6y ago
  That viewpoint seems unnecessarily narrow. It's like saying we are in a decline because we went from Caspar David Friedrich to Banksy. It's perfectly valid not to like it even want to understand someone's work, as art is always subjective imho, but it feels weird to try to grade it on a scale. I generally prefer Greek sculpture as an art form, and will probably walk by 90% of any modern art museum without stopping. But that doesn't mean I won't be moved by some of the exhibitions, possibly even more than by the "Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer" or the "Nike of Samothrake".
  - Causality1 6y ago
    If the general direction of the art world is "going from Caspar David Friedrich to Banksy" then yes, we are in a decline. A landscape painter contributes more to human culture than the patron saint of edgy 14-year-olds who've just discovered powerful people tend to be assholes.
    - rbecker 6y ago
      That's not being fair to Banksy, as his work, whatever you might think of it, is at least an improvement from the likes of Mark Rothko.
      - NoOneNew 6y ago
        Banksy is a profiteer. He has his own "team" that verifies his work. Come on. He's just a graphic designer that figured out how to make better money off people who are anti-system because it's the cool thing to do. If he really gave a shit about "the causes", theres a good saying that sums it up. You do more good from changing the system from within, rather than throwing pebbles at the windows.
        notduncansmith 6y ago
        Changing the system within is like running barefoot after the fellow who just stole your shoes. I’ll take the rocks and a slingshot, thanks.
- goto11 6y ago
  I don't get this desire to rank everything on the same scale. Its like comparing a Wagner opera-cycle to a Robert Johnson song. What measures are you using for this ranking and what is even the purpose? I think if you care about poetry you would enjoy both Shakespeare and minimalism. Come on, the "crickets" poem is hilarious! Here is a minimalist poem called "Swans seen through tears" (by S. Grotrian): 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 But how do you rank it against say a speech in one of the lesser Shakespeare plays? (I'm also fond of the minimalist short story genre. Hemingway wrote a famous one in just six words.)
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    A link to that hemmingway might have been good. I'll punt; something like "he rode off into the sunset". Close?
    - Stratoscope 6y ago
      For sale: baby shoes, never worn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_sale:_baby_shoes,_never_worn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_sale:_baby_shoes,_never_wo...
      - goto11 6y ago
        Apparently the attribution to Hemingway is apocryphal. Good story though.
      - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
        Not even close. Thanks for the link. In return, something almost as short and sad https://theoatmeal.com/comics/oracle https://theoatmeal.com/comics/oracle
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
blackbear_ 6y ago
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Oh hey, I am more talented than I thought! Now let me write a 4000-words column explaining why you obtuse boors cannot even begin to comprehend the depth of this deceptively simple thought.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  I'm upvoting this because others have downvoted without giving a reason, a strong sign that they have no defence. And I strongly agree with blackbear_, but I also like this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24418408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24418408 (I'm assuming the claim about the picture's authors is true, but it has much precedent eg. in L. S. Lowry). I've raged with ill manners here against fawning over art, accepting it because it is art so the courage to challenge its worth disappears (and silent downvotes appear). I'm not against art, I'm against unthinking conformity. A lot of 'art' just isn't - anyone care to debate? (Also of note https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24418220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24418220) Edit: and within 30 seconds a downvote.
  - tokai 6y ago
    Read the HN guidelines.
- non-entity 6y ago
  Well they seem to have gotten you very emotional about it so I'd say they succeeded at something.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Punching him in the nuts would have been even more 'successful' but that's by the bye. Of greater relevance is you've mocked him without addressing his point.
    - non-entity 6y ago
      Theres no real "point" to address. The GP simply repeats an expletive several times before they build a strawman they can use to insult the author. This is the textual version of a temper tantrum.
pmoriarty 6y ago
I've never read so many words about one word.
- coolgeek 6y ago
  Word.
thelean12 6y ago
The other major thread here as of writing is too focused on comparisons. I'll avoid that all together by saying this: This poetry is not a worthwhile effort, and the analysis of it is even less worthwhile. Maybe Aram Saroyan can be praised for convincing people that his poetry is meaningful and deep, when in reality he probably just spent 2 minutes writing "crickets" however many times on the page while laughing to himself that people were going to pay money for it.
- aimor 6y ago
  This kind of statement really depends on what you mean by "worthwhile". Writing doesn't have to (and rarely does) give raw information to provide worth. Sometimes it just points in a direction, sometimes it just collects people together over a single topic, sometimes it's just for fun. One day another of Saroyan’s friends, the poet Ted Berrigan, got a look at his latest one-word poem, eyeye, on a sheet of typewriter paper. “He said, ‘What the fuck is this?’” Saroyan recalls, “which I thought was a promising response.” https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/68913/you-call-that-poetry https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/68913/you-call-tha... A poem should not mean But be. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/17168/ars-poetica https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/17168/... In a world that's meaningless and mostly empty there's time to waste reading and writing and discussing nonsense poetry until it starts to make sense. I think you're right that Saroyan found the responses to his poetry more interesting than the work itself. The Reagan administration went in trying to dismantle the National Endowment for the Arts, citing Saroyan among others, wound up eventually inflating the budget, and was rewarded with Immersion (Piss Christ). I think it's funny too. https://www.arts.gov/open-government/national-endowment-arts-appropriations-history https://www.arts.gov/open-government/national-endowment-arts... So what if he was high and having a laugh? It exists, it's been read, noticed, observed, considered. "You could feel him in a room at his typewriter, like a monkey or a cat with a little extra brainpower." It does not have to be liked, it can be "banal". https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Hell-t.html?_r=1&ref=books https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Hell-t.html?... As for the analysis, you may have overlooked some of the more nuanced conclusions. The North American field cricket chirps 33 times a minute. Big Ben, six-o'clock, 1924. Tic-tac (1969). Obviously there's is an oversight in the claim a clock only makes one sound Tick Tick. A pendulum clock swinging to two distinct sides will in fact make two sounds. And extending lighght to L-I-G-H-G-H-T is absurd, this is visual art and it's not the same at all once that's done.
aimor 6y ago
wat
- goto11 6y ago
  *crickets*
gcuth 6y ago
I have 'lighght' as a tattoo on my ribs. No regrets.

25 points by anarbadalov 6y ago

ARandomerDude 6y ago

We went from Shakespeare to "lighght." It's hard to see that as anything other than a decline.

fiblye 6y ago
There's room for many kinds of art in this world. Minimalism has earned its own space.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  On maximalism, english wouldn't be suitable, but I wonder if there are any agglutinative languages productive enough to generate a potentially infinite one-word poem? (the opposite would be an infinite number —easily done via implied cyclicity[1]— of single-grapheme poems, which probably requires an asiatic script) [1] are there any mobius-strip spin 1/2 fermionic stories? they'd reconnect, but with a twist, so every other reading has a different interpretation...
  - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
    There is a potentially infinite one-word poem in English actually, so long as one is allowed hyphens: "police" can be both a noun or a verb. 'Police-police' are police who police the police. Police whose job it is to police the police-police are police-police-police, etc. Any number of recursions would be possible. Regarding your idea of fermionic stories, I think King's Dark Tower series might be close, though I may be misunderstanding the concept...
    - psyc 6y ago
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo. Meaning that buffalo in Buffalo whom other buffalo in Buffalo do buffalo, also buffalo other buffalo in Buffalo that still other buffalo in Buffalo do buffalo.
- tgv 6y ago
  That requires a lot of goodwill from the reader: "I'm going to try to find this interesting because it's supposed to be a poem." Suppose you find a scrap of paper with the text (which I'm sure you haven't seen before): I withdraw and wait. This is time that doesn't get lost: each minute becomes future. I am an ocean of waiting, in a waterproof envelope of now. (*) Or you'd find a scrap of paper with the text lighght Isn't there a difference? I can appreciate the attempt in the latter, I think the "cricket" one is at least funny, but can it withstand comparison with Shakespeare? It's not a coincidence that the the article starts with the mention of Oulipo: it's word play, the joy of expressing under extreme constraints, rather than poetry. (*) Source: Eb (English: Ebb) by M. Vasalis, in a loose translation.
  - fiblye 6y ago
    Here are two paintings. [1] https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450/sciencde-and-charity-e1535002340741.jpg https://cdn8.openculture.com/2018/08/22215450/sciencde-and-c... [2] https://painting-planet.com/images/9/image293.jpg https://painting-planet.com/images/9/image293.jpg Painting [1] demonstrates a mastery of light, shadow, and color. It's complicated. It's full of detail. Anybody who walked by this in an art gallery would surely think, "This person is a great artist" and move on. Painting [2] will most likely be called a great painting by most people, but that's because most people have seen it at some point and know who painted it. This person has a massive reputation as one of the greatest artists of all time. People who walk by this in a museum will stop and snap a picture and take a minute to really look at it because, hey, this guy is super famous, so he must be great. But [2] is clearly painted much faster than [1] and has far less fine detail. A person who doesn't know anything about painting [2] or the artist behind it will probably say something like "anyone could do this. Even I could do that"--but it was a revolutionary style at the time because people didn't do it. [1] was merely fitting into a more established framework of art and was far less likely to blow minds, even though a typical person without foreknowledge might be more likely to compliment [1] on being a "good" painting than [2]. And many might know this, but [1] was painted by the artist when he was a child. [2] was painted by him as a full-fledged artist as an adult. The reduction in realism and complexity in favor of abstraction was an intentional progression for his work. These simple poems don't need to be as complex as Shakespeare. They're not trying to be. They serve an entirely different purpose. People are still writing long, epic poems even today, but it's a vastly explored field of art and demand for new material in that style is quite low. Not every one word poem is going to be mind-blowing, but some definitely grab some interest. There are plenty of people, even well-read people, who find Shakespeare tedious. There are people who think a page with nothing but "cricket" is fluff. Both kinds of art can coexist.
fnordian_slip 6y ago
That viewpoint seems unnecessarily narrow. It's like saying we are in a decline because we went from Caspar David Friedrich to Banksy. It's perfectly valid not to like it even want to understand someone's work, as art is always subjective imho, but it feels weird to try to grade it on a scale. I generally prefer Greek sculpture as an art form, and will probably walk by 90% of any modern art museum without stopping. But that doesn't mean I won't be moved by some of the exhibitions, possibly even more than by the "Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer" or the "Nike of Samothrake".
- Causality1 6y ago
  If the general direction of the art world is "going from Caspar David Friedrich to Banksy" then yes, we are in a decline. A landscape painter contributes more to human culture than the patron saint of edgy 14-year-olds who've just discovered powerful people tend to be assholes.
  - rbecker 6y ago
    That's not being fair to Banksy, as his work, whatever you might think of it, is at least an improvement from the likes of Mark Rothko.
    - NoOneNew 6y ago
      Banksy is a profiteer. He has his own "team" that verifies his work. Come on. He's just a graphic designer that figured out how to make better money off people who are anti-system because it's the cool thing to do. If he really gave a shit about "the causes", theres a good saying that sums it up. You do more good from changing the system from within, rather than throwing pebbles at the windows.
      - notduncansmith 6y ago
        Changing the system within is like running barefoot after the fellow who just stole your shoes. I’ll take the rocks and a slingshot, thanks.
goto11 6y ago
I don't get this desire to rank everything on the same scale. Its like comparing a Wagner opera-cycle to a Robert Johnson song. What measures are you using for this ranking and what is even the purpose? I think if you care about poetry you would enjoy both Shakespeare and minimalism. Come on, the "crickets" poem is hilarious! Here is a minimalist poem called "Swans seen through tears" (by S. Grotrian): 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 But how do you rank it against say a speech in one of the lesser Shakespeare plays? (I'm also fond of the minimalist short story genre. Hemingway wrote a famous one in just six words.)
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  A link to that hemmingway might have been good. I'll punt; something like "he rode off into the sunset". Close?
  - Stratoscope 6y ago
    For sale: baby shoes, never worn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_sale:_baby_shoes,_never_worn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_sale:_baby_shoes,_never_wo...
    - goto11 6y ago
      Apparently the attribution to Hemingway is apocryphal. Good story though.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      Not even close. Thanks for the link. In return, something almost as short and sad https://theoatmeal.com/comics/oracle https://theoatmeal.com/comics/oracle

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

blackbear_ 6y ago

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Oh hey, I am more talented than I thought! Now let me write a 4000-words column explaining why you obtuse boors cannot even begin to comprehend the depth of this deceptively simple thought.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
I'm upvoting this because others have downvoted without giving a reason, a strong sign that they have no defence. And I strongly agree with blackbear_, but I also like this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24418408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24418408 (I'm assuming the claim about the picture's authors is true, but it has much precedent eg. in L. S. Lowry). I've raged with ill manners here against fawning over art, accepting it because it is art so the courage to challenge its worth disappears (and silent downvotes appear). I'm not against art, I'm against unthinking conformity. A lot of 'art' just isn't - anyone care to debate? (Also of note https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24418220 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24418220) Edit: and within 30 seconds a downvote.
- tokai 6y ago
  Read the HN guidelines.
non-entity 6y ago
Well they seem to have gotten you very emotional about it so I'd say they succeeded at something.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Punching him in the nuts would have been even more 'successful' but that's by the bye. Of greater relevance is you've mocked him without addressing his point.
  - non-entity 6y ago
    Theres no real "point" to address. The GP simply repeats an expletive several times before they build a strawman they can use to insult the author. This is the textual version of a temper tantrum.

pmoriarty 6y ago

I've never read so many words about one word.

coolgeek 6y ago
Word.

thelean12 6y ago

The other major thread here as of writing is too focused on comparisons. I'll avoid that all together by saying this: This poetry is not a worthwhile effort, and the analysis of it is even less worthwhile. Maybe Aram Saroyan can be praised for convincing people that his poetry is meaningful and deep, when in reality he probably just spent 2 minutes writing "crickets" however many times on the page while laughing to himself that people were going to pay money for it.

aimor 6y ago
This kind of statement really depends on what you mean by "worthwhile". Writing doesn't have to (and rarely does) give raw information to provide worth. Sometimes it just points in a direction, sometimes it just collects people together over a single topic, sometimes it's just for fun. One day another of Saroyan’s friends, the poet Ted Berrigan, got a look at his latest one-word poem, eyeye, on a sheet of typewriter paper. “He said, ‘What the fuck is this?’” Saroyan recalls, “which I thought was a promising response.” https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/68913/you-call-that-poetry https://www.poetryfoundation.org/articles/68913/you-call-tha... A poem should not mean But be. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/17168/ars-poetica https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/poems/17168/... In a world that's meaningless and mostly empty there's time to waste reading and writing and discussing nonsense poetry until it starts to make sense. I think you're right that Saroyan found the responses to his poetry more interesting than the work itself. The Reagan administration went in trying to dismantle the National Endowment for the Arts, citing Saroyan among others, wound up eventually inflating the budget, and was rewarded with Immersion (Piss Christ). I think it's funny too. https://www.arts.gov/open-government/national-endowment-arts-appropriations-history https://www.arts.gov/open-government/national-endowment-arts... So what if he was high and having a laugh? It exists, it's been read, noticed, observed, considered. "You could feel him in a room at his typewriter, like a monkey or a cat with a little extra brainpower." It does not have to be liked, it can be "banal". https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Hell-t.html?_r=1&ref=books https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Hell-t.html?... As for the analysis, you may have overlooked some of the more nuanced conclusions. The North American field cricket chirps 33 times a minute. Big Ben, six-o'clock, 1924. Tic-tac (1969). Obviously there's is an oversight in the claim a clock only makes one sound Tick Tick. A pendulum clock swinging to two distinct sides will in fact make two sounds. And extending lighght to L-I-G-H-G-H-T is absurd, this is visual art and it's not the same at all once that's done.

aimor 6y ago

wat

goto11 6y ago
*crickets*

gcuth 6y ago

I have 'lighght' as a tattoo on my ribs. No regrets.