Archive of: Crouch, Jeff
16 rejected pieces by Jeff Crouch, and the conversation that ensued
To: “Dan Waber”
Subject: Submission
Hi Dan—
See if any of these images work for you.
There are a few image sets within this miscellany and some of the sets could
be lego-ed together.
Thanks, Jeff Crouch
(click on thumbnails to enlarge)
Alligator Cubed
Chicken Breasts 1, 2, 3 & 4
Frankenstein’s Monster Tile 1, 2, 5 & 6
System of the Down Down 3, The Clarity of Power, The Sky Arrested
Wire Skull 1, 2, 3 & 4
From: “Dan Waber”
Subject: Re: Submission
To: “Jeff Crouch”
Jeff,
Hmm, I’m not getting it. Where’s the connection in these to concrete
poetry? They’re lovely examples of visual art, but I’m just not seeing
the tie in.
But I’m open to being helped to see that connection, if you can maybe
explain to me how these pieces function, for you, within the concept
of concrete poetry.
Regards,
Dan
From: “Jeff Crouch”
Subject: RE: Re: Submission
To: “Dan Waber”
Hi Dan—
I think the problem here is the level of the iconographic. I’d say the
closest I have to the singular icon in this submission—from what I
see on the site, the individual presentation strives for a single
glyph—are the Frankenstein Monster and Wire Skull images. (Can you
see these forms in the pictures I sent?—if you can’t see the
Frankenstein monster image or the Wire Skull image, the graphic won’t
work as such.) The complexity of these images is perhaps in the way
that they do and do not move toward a single glyph. In comparison to
such images on your site as “belltower” and “curse,“ they are close,
but not necessarily locked in a singular (solidified) imprint. I was
hoping you might be able to use them to play on such a theory: (in
what way) directed toward the glyph. The chicken images also have a
closeness to “curse,” but in a more abstract way (multiply
concrete). Their imprints offer multi-glyphs rather than a single
glyph, and by way of comparison, contrast nicely to the diffuseness of
the “A” image that, in spite of its multiple lines, moves towards a
single expression. Finally, the System of the Down offers a sentence
of multiple glyphs—Coca Cola and the all-seeing eye, for
instance. I’m happy to delve into such a theory if you’re
interested. I’m also happy to work on a more solidified (concrete) set
of images if that’s what you need—concrete minimalist might thereby
defined by its direction toward the glyph.
Thanks, Jeff Crouch
From: “Dan Waber”
Subject: Re: Submission
To: “Jeff Crouch”
Jeff,
> I think the problem here is the level of the iconographic. I’d say
> the closest I have to the singular icon in this submission—from
> what I see on the site, the individual presentation strives for a
> single glyph—
I think that’s accurate of mIEKAL aND’s pieces, but not very accurate
for the range of works presented though out the archives. Or, maybe
another way to put it is that the those pieces are the outside limit
of glyphness that I’ve been able to justify, because glyphness isn’t
really central to my notion of concrete poetry. It is connected to
concrete poetry (in my mind) because concrete poetry leverages visual
properties that are similar to those employed by glyphs. I’m working
out all of this as I go, btw, please don’t interpret anything I say
that sounds like I know what I’m talking about or that sounds definite
as being anything more than convenient ways of expressing my exploring
of these notions.
> are the Frankenstein Monster and Wire Skull
> images. (Can you see these forms in the pictures I sent?—if you
> can’t see the Frankenstein monster image or the Wire Skull image,
> the graphic won’t work as such.)
Yes, I see the images. And to me, while they resolve themselves in a
way that moves from complexer to simpler (the direction of minimalist
endeavors), they move from the graphic and end at the glyphic, and in
this way never make it to the lexical, which I think is crucial for
the term “poetry” to belong.
> The complexity of these images is
> perhaps in the way that they do and do not move toward a single
> glyph.
Hmm, I think I’m understanding. I think maybe I have at the center of
my notion of mcp the word, possibly the syllable/phoneme/grapheme. I
can move away from that center to the letter, and even as far as the
asemic or the glyph as it reaches for the blurry edge of
identification as letter or letter-like.
I’m thinking something iconographic can be approached from two
directions, from the letter and from the visual. Where the letter
blends into the iconographic, that’s where my interests sit. Where the
visual blends into the iconographic, that’s an interesting place, but,
not an identical place to me, and not where my interests sit.
It’s a nebulous and messy thing trying to identify these specific
aspects of what most will agree can be called “visual poetry” at its
most general.
> In comparison to such images on your site as “belltower” and
> “curse,” they are close, but not necessarily locked in a singular
> (solidified) imprint. I was hoping you might be able to use them to
> play on such a theory: (in what way) directed toward the glyph. The
> chicken images also have a closeness to “curse,” but in a more
> abstract way (multiply concrete). Their imprints offer multi-glyphs
> rather than a single glyph, and by way of comparison, contrast
> nicely to the diffuseness of the “A” image that, in spite of its
> multiple lines, moves towards a single expression. Finally, the
> System of the Down offers a sentence of multiple glyphs—Coca Cola
> and the all-seeing eye, for instance. I’m happy to delve into such a
> theory if you’re interested. I’m also happy to work on a more
> solidified (concrete) set of images if that’s what you
> need—concrete minimalist might thereby defined by its direction
> toward the glyph.
I understand.
This is one of many continuums that are at play here:
word-----------------------------------picture
here’s another:
complex--------------------------------simple
I think the continuums are best conceptualized has allowing for a
sense of directional movement and speed, as well, not just static
plotted points.
I’d put these pieces of yours like this on these continuums:
word---------------------------<-<-----picture
complex------>------->-----------------simple
and where I locate minimalist concrete poetry is more like:
word------------(-----|-----)-----------picture
complex-------------------(------|-----)simple
I admit that a lot of what appears on the site is removed from the
central core that I want to focus on, but that’s a result of me
wanting to acknowledge the fuzziness of all these borders. I do,
however, feel its important to not stray beyond the fuzzy borders into
land that I can’t see a way to strongly tie in to the central notion.
Regards,
Dan
From: “Jeff Crouch”
Subject: RE: Re: Submission
To: “Dan Waber”
Hi Dan—
I would use minimalist to qualify the singular (image, glyph, ...) and
the direction as you state it: that which “moves from complexer to
simpler (the direction of minimalist endeavors.”
For visual poetics, I’d throw out linguistics pretty much altogether
as a theory and only bring it back in when sound becomes important to
the interpretation. Hence, “a” is no longer a sound, just a shape
until we want the shape to signify sound. Coca-Cola is no longer a
word or set of characters, but a glyph—the simplest level, an image
without component meaning unless we want to make it a word and give it
component meaning.
And after all, variation between level of meaning moves a glyph into
the realm of letter or word so, if you’re moving the glyph to word,
your direction of interpretation is moving toward the complex rather
than the simple. The shape whose complexity simplifies into a single
form also becomes complex as it takes on the formal meaning of its
found shape. What I like about “curse” is that the title of the image
itself makes this assignment whereas a shape that resembles a
character falls into the domain of character interpretation slightly
differently.
Thanks, Jeff Crouch
From: “Dan Waber”
Subject: Re: Submission
To: “Jeff Crouch”
Jeff,
> I would use minimalist to qualify the singular (image, glyph, ...)
> and the direction as you state it: that which “moves from complexer
> to simpler (the direction of minimalist endeavors.”
>
> For visual poetics, I’d throw out linguistics pretty much altogether
> as a theory and only bring it back in when sound becomes important
> to the interpretation. Hence, “a” is no longer a sound, just a shape
> until we want the shape to signify sound. Coca-Cola is no longer a
> word or set of characters, but a glyph—the simplest level, an image
> without component meaning unless we want to make it a word and give
> it component meaning.
Then why call it “poetics” at all? Why not call it visual art? If the
linguistic is thrown out altogether, what value is there in the
reference to poetry?
> And after all, variation between level of meaning moves a glyph into
> the realm of letter or word so, if you’re moving the glyph to word,
> your direction of interpretation is moving toward the complex rather
> than the simple.
But I’m more interested in moving from the word to the glyph then the
glyph to the word.
> The shape whose complexity simplifies into a single
> form also becomes complex as it takes on the formal meaning of its
> found shape. What I like about “curse” is that the title of the
> image itself makes this assignment whereas a shape that resembles a
> character falls into the domain of character interpretation slightly
> differently.
The role of the title in establishing the interpretive context within
which the visual starts to meaning-make in a linguistic manner is, in
my opinion, one (of many) strategies that is seen often enough in
concrete poetry that it’s nearly (but not quite) a defining
characteristic.
And I don’t see any problem with the minimal operating simultaneously
as the complex. In fact, I think because we are metaphor making
machines, the most successful minimalist art helps us understand the
complex by being both simple and complex at once, in the same way that
the complex can help us understand the simple.
Regards,
Dan
From: “Jeff Crouch”
Subject: RE: Re: Submission
To: “Dan Waber”
Hi Dan—
On your question to the following:
>> For visual poetics, I’d throw out linguistics pretty much
>> altogether as a theory and only bring it back in when sound
>> becomes important to the interpretation. Hence, “a” is no
>> longer a sound, just a shape until we want the shape to signify
>> sound. Coca-Cola is no longer a word or set of characters, but
>> a glyph—the simplest level, an image without component meaning
>> unless we want to make it a word and give it component
>> meaning.
> Then why call it “poetics” at all? Why not call it visual art?
> If the linguistic is thrown out altogether, what value is there in
> the reference to poetry?
1) I’m not throwing out linguistics, just removing its vocabulary
until it’s needed as such. The actual problem may be using an
atomic vocabulary to explain something that’s not atomic, but
hermeneutic. For example, linguistics reduces meaningful sound to
the phoneme. Is linguistics needed where sound is not involved?
Perhaps, but my point is why introduce linguistics until you need
it to describe something?
2) A question as an answer: Do we need linguistics to describe sign
language?
3) As to poetry, we don’t necessary need linguistics to have it. For
example, “poetry in motion.” So, “concrete poetry” means something
different than “visual art,” but it doesn’t necessarily mean poetry
that linguistics describes—i.e., written word or spoken word.
Thanks, Jeff Crouch
From: “Dan Waber”
Subject: Re: Submission
To: “Jeff Crouch”
Jeff,
>>> On your question to the following:
>>>
>>> For visual poetics, I’d throw out linguistics pretty much altogether
>>> as a theory and only bring it back in when sound becomes important
>>> to the interpretation. Hence, “a” is no longer a sound, just a shape
>>> until we want the shape to signify sound. Coca-Cola is no longer a
>>> word or set of characters, but a glyph—the simplest level, an image
>>> without component meaning unless we want to make it a word and give
>>> it component meaning.
>>>
>> linguistic is thrown out altogether, what value is there in the
>> reference to poetry?
>>
> 1) I’m not throwing out linguistics, just removing its vocabulary
> until it’s needed as such. The actual problem may be using an atomic
> vocabulary to explain something that’s not atomic, but
> hermeneutic. For example, linguistics reduces meaningful sound to
> the phoneme. Is linguistics needed where sound is not involved?
> Perhaps, but my point is why introduce linguistics until you need it
> to describe something?
You’re removing selected parts of its vocabulary, but retaining a term
that is, except for metaphorical uses (your later mentioned “poetry in
motion”), a term that (I’m saying) is in the vocabulary of
linguistics. I’m saying if there’s no linguistic elements to the
piece, why call it poetry. Perhaps we define linguistic elements
differently. I’m locked into the letteral and sub-letteral as the
limits of “linguistic element”, and you seem to more easily include
the iconographic or pictographic.
> 2) A question as an answer: Do we need linguistics to describe sign
> language?
If we’re describing he way it functions as a language, I think
linguistics is appropriate. We would need to recognize that the set of
terms useful in describing a written language will not serve perfectly
for a gestural language, that we’ll need new terms and need to abandon
some old terms, but I don’t see the problem with that at all.
> 3) As to poetry, we don’t necessary need linguistics to have it. For
> example, “poetry in motion.” So, “concrete poetry” means something
> different than “visual art,” but it doesn’t necessarily mean poetry
> that linguistics describes—i.e., written word or spoken word.
I agree we don’t need linguistics to have poetry. However, I also
think “poetry in motion” is a metaphorical use, not a literal one, and
doesn’t really function in a way that would justify using at as an
argument as you are doing. I agree “concrete poetry” means something
different than “visual art”, but I disagree that it doesn’t
necessarily mean poetry that linguistics describes (if we’re talking
about visual concrete poetry, during the historical movement of
concrete poetry there were sound works which were described as such
and I’m not considering them in this current conversation; I don’t
think you are, either, I’m just wanting to be clear). In fact, this is
precisely our point of disagreement. I am questioning the usage of the
term “poetry” to non-metaphorically describe anything that doesn’t
manifest elements that can be identified using the vocabulary of
linguistics.
Regards,
Dan
Jeff Crouch is a man of many bios.
A Long Graphic Artist Bio:
Jeff Crouch is an internet artist in Grand Prairie, Texas. His graphic
work has appeared in The Blue Smoke Band, Poems Niederngasse, ardent,
moria, eratio postmodern poetry, Ancient Heart Magazine, Speculative
Fiction Centre, JMWW, Quill and Ink, Stirring: A Literary Collection,
Spoiled Ink, Lunatic Chameleon, Triplopia, Events Quarterly, Skive
Magazine, Subtle Tea, Literary Vision Magazine (LitVision), Prose
Toad, Lily, Ink Pot, Generator Press (April 2006 Exhibit), Monkey
Kettle, BluePrintReview, DogEar, Expose'd, Misanthropists Anonymous
(with Molly Crouch), Above Ground Testing (with Molly Crouch), Dicey
Brown, Unpleasant Event Schedule, The Dreaming Pool, Underground
Window, 63 Channels, The Lampshade, Cezanne's Carrot Literary Journal,
Bending Spoons, Unlikely Stories, The Aurora Review, Ascent
Aspirations Magazine, Twisted Tongue, Mad Hatter's Review, decomP, The
Sidewalk's End, DISPATCH Literary Review, Red Fez, Neon Highway, Sein
und Werden, The Centrifugal Eye, PFS Post, tre_a_tro, HiNgE, The
Chrysalis (with Molly Crouch and Ben Crouch), and zafusy with more
forthcoming in Forklift Ohio, Acton, Defenestration Magazine,
Bewildering Stories, Southern Hum, Minimalist Concrete Poetry,Thieves
Jargon, Tattoo Highway, Chick Flicks E-Zine, and SCIFAIKUEST.
A Short Graphic Artist Bio:
Jeff Crouch is an internet artist in Grand Prairie, Texas. His graphic
work has appeared on numerous sites.
A Lyrical Bio:
In the Dallas-Forth Worth metroplex of Texas.
Culture as history, politics, and art, the conjunction thereof.
Time as Moebius strip.
Splicing poetry into it.
An Other-Than-Artist Bio:
Jeff Crouch works on computers by day, occasionally takes his wife's
digital camera with him to catch a frame full of pixels, and plays on
the computer by night.