Language as a Democratic Artistic Medium: A Comparative Analysis of Charles Bernstein and Lawrence Weiner's Poetics and Avant-Garde Practices Involving the Material of Language

(1)

Language as a Democratic Artistic Medium

A Comparative Analysis of Charles Bernstein and

Lawrence Weiner’s Poetics and Avant-Garde

Practices Involving the Material of Language

Master Thesis by Brandie Clark

Supervised by Dr. Gaston Franssen

Master’s of Literature and Culture: Specialization English

Student Number: 10620117

(2)

1. Thesis and a Historical and Critical Context

L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poet Charles Bernstein (1950-) and Conceptual artist Lawrence Weiner (1942-) both work with the material of language in their respective practices. Bernstein’s work with language involves exploring its visual, acoustic, and semantic properties in order to write poetry that serves as an aesthetic space for readers to develop their own individual meanings based on the connections they make within the language of the poems. To create this space, Bernstein writes poetry without a singular, expressive, poetic voice or intended meaning. His poems are often composed of juxtaposed words, phrases, and fragments of language appropriated from various social contexts and are also often constructed in untraditional poetic forms that explore the effects of the placement of language within the space of the page. Weiner’s

language-based work consists of “sculptures” produced in the form of statements. According to Weiner, his work created in the medium of language is intrinsically similar to the traditional practice of sculpture since he is working with the materials and mass designated by his statements (“Benjamin” 12). These “sculptures” may remain as notations or viewers may fabricate the work in any other medium they perceive as appropriate. For example, one of his “sculptures” may also exist in the form of the object created by performing the statement or in the form of a documentation of the performance of the statement.

Although Weiner and Bernstein’s work with language has been related and their works have been collected together in the same anthologies such as The Dark Would, their similar use of language has never before been researched. The aim of this research is to analyze their poetics and practices in a structured and comparative manner. By doing so, differences and similarities are revealed. The main similarity that I find in Weiner and Bernstein’s poetics and practices involving language is that both artists use language as a tool to create widely accessible,

(4)

non-metaphorical, interactive works of art. I argue that Weiner and Bernstein utilize language in this way in order to make the institution and experience of interpreting art more democratic. When describing art as functioning democratically, I mean that it enables the public to participate in the co-production of artworks’ meanings. In order to allow public participation, democratic works of art and literature must be accessible and present an opportunity for viewers and readers to

become involved.

A comparative analysis of Bernstein and Weiner’s poetics and practices is not an easy endeavor, however, for though there may be apparent similarities in their practices, their poetics differ in important ways. For example, both Bernstein and Weiner hold different views on the intersection of poetry and visual arts. Bernstein is open to exploring the visual aspect of written language, including the use of language in visual art. His interest in the visual properties of written language and the poetic expressions to be interpreted from visual art led him to co-curate the 2001 exhibition “Poetry Plastique” with Jay Sanders. Bernstein claims that along with curating wider practices of visually oriented poetry, the aim of the exhibition was to exhibit poetry outside of its usual context of a page in a book. In the opening essay of the “Poetry Plastique” exhibition catalogue Bernstein explains, “Letters of the alphabet are tenaciously referential (standing for a sound or for the idea of the letter), often at the expense of denying the physical and visual existence of written language, even the possible origin of letters as icons or pictographs” (Sanders and Bernstein 7). By exhibiting poetry in an art exhibition Bernstein aimed to draw attention to the visual and physical aspect of written language and provides an opportunity for the letters in the works to be perceived as objects and sounds.

In order to highlight the visual aspect of written language, Bernstein also collaborated with the postminimalist artist Richard Tuttle to create With Strings for the exhibition (Bernstein

(5)

and Tuttle). With Strings is a two-part work consisting of a poem and poem-sculpture (“With Strings”). As a poem, With Strings exists as 13 lines of varying lengths that consist of juxtaposed words strung together without any spaces between them. The poem-sculpture is composed of a terra-cotta base that holds the cut-up lines of the poem. Out of this base, a brass tube strung with the letters of the first line of the poem spirals upward. Along the perimeter of each letter is the text of the entire poem, making each of the letters a medium of the poem as a whole. Bernstein’s involvement with the “Poetry Plastique” exhibition shows how he is open to exploring the visual aspect and potential of language through work not only as a poet, but also as a visual artist and curator.

Bernstein may be open to creating both works of poetry and visual art in the medium of language, however Weiner has expressed that his work with language should be distinguished from works of literature. According to Weiner, the significant difference between an artist’s use of language and a writer’s use of language is that artists use language to represent objective reality and writers use language to represent their subjective reality (Schwarz 196). He asserts:

When language is used for literature, when it is used for poetry, when it is used for journalism, it implies an absolute belief in God. It says that we, each and every one of us, understands what empathy is, what the relationships of human beings are to each other. We understand a world order. (“Intervention” 132-134) Weiner believes that literature represents the relationship of human beings to other human beings. In his opinion, expressing human relationships through language involves referencing ideas and emotions derived from the writer’s subjective view of reality. He believes the use of meaningful and metaphorical language implies a common understanding of the ideas being communicated based on a shared value and belief system.

Weiner finds an artist’s use of language to be different from a writer’s use of language in that it presents the empirical reality of materials in the world. Weiner claims:

(6)

When language is used for science or used to present art it does not carry with it this belief in god. It does not exclude a belief in a god, but it does not carry this belief with it, there are no value structures within it. Art when presented exists on its own. It’s one of the few remaining examples of human endeavor – and I don’t use the word ‘work’ or ‘labour’ but endeavor; that does not carry with it an implied value structure: it has no assumption. (“Intervention” 134)

In Weiner’s perspective, language is an artistic medium that can be used without communicating social or historical values or ideas. He believes that this is achieved in his practice by using language to form a dialogue with viewers on the reality of the materials referenced in his statements. He intends for the language in his statements to present his objective observation of the empirical reality of materials. In his view, when viewers interpret his statements they construct the statement either mentally or physically with the materials in their own lives. Through this process, Weiner believes viewers are to develop their own understanding of the materials, which can be used to create personal metaphors for better understanding reality. In this way, Weiner believes that the artworks do not communicate his subjective view of the materials, but initiate a process for viewers to follow in order to better understand materials within their own lives. For example, Weiner did not create the statement WATER UNDER A BRIDGE with an intended metaphor (Weiner, “WATER”). The statement was created to represent the empirical reality of water located beneath a bridge. By interpreting this statement, Weiner believes that viewers can better understand how they relate to water underneath a bridge and that viewers can use this understanding to develop a metaphor for understanding their position in the world.

Although as an artist Weiner has a strong opinion against the expressive, metaphorical use of language in literature, Bernstein, as a poet, also shares this same critique. In “The Expanded Field of L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E” Bernstein explains that the field of

L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry consists of poets writing in a wide range of poetic styles and utilizing a wide range of poetic techniques, who unite over the common rejection of traditional,

(7)

conservative poetry practices and beliefs (282). Unlike poets who write traditional expressive I-centered poetry, L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poets use a wide range of styles and techniques to create “language-centered” or “perceiver-centered” poetry that allows readers to interact with the poems’ language to develop their own personal meanings from the works (288). Bernstein explains that for the poets associated with L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E that, “At the most basic level, there was a sense that words did not always mean what they said, that language is never neutral but rather always betrays an ideological interest and unstated messages” (286).

L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poets share a common view that seemingly impartial language patterns and social discourses communicate beliefs and values. They aim to expose ideological messages contained within language and work through the problems they see in traditional methods of conveying meaning in poetry by developing new ways of creating meaning in their work.

This shared view on the use of expressive, metaphorical language in literature suggests that there are further similarities in Weiner and Bernstein’s poetics and practices involving the use of language. In the following chapters I will be analyzing these similarities in more detail. I will begin in the second chapter by charting and comparing their poetics. In particular, I will be focusing on Weiner and Bernstein’s views on how art and literature should be produced,

distributed, and received. I will continue in the third chapter by looking at their actual practices. In this chapter I will be analyzing how Weiner and Bernstein use everyday materials, repetition, and punctuation in their work. Through this analysis, further similarities may be revealed.

In order to fully understand Bernstein and Weiner’s poetics and practices, it is important to situate their artistic practices within a historical context. Both belong to an artistic tradition that can be traced back to the historical avant-garde and American modernism. Andreas

(8)

that creating more accessible and interactive forms of art and literature became a concern for American postmodern artists in response to the institutionalization of modern art (193). Huyssen explains, “Modernism constituted itself through a conscious strategy of exclusion, an anxiety of contamination by its other: an increasingly consuming and engulfing mass culture” (vii). The modernist ideology promoted a belief in the autonomy of art separate from everyday life and social, political, and economic concerns. In this way, modern art was opposed to mass culture. Huyssen identifies that one of the factors that separates American modernism from

postmodernism, is that postmodern artistic practices protested against the modernist institutionalization of high art in America in the 1950s (193).

To support his argument, Huyssen utilizes Peter Bürger’s theory on the practices of the avant-garde (191). In Theory of the Avant-Garde (1974) Bürger argues that:

The European avant-garde movements can be defined as an attack on the status of art in bourgeois society. What is negated is not an earlier form of art (a style) but art as an institution that is unassociated with the life praxis of men. (49)

Bürger explains the institution of art as ideas about art that determine its reception and also the means of producing and distributing art (22). He claims that in bourgeois society art was

perceived as an autonomous social realm separate from the practice of everyday life (46). Bürger explains the significance of the autonomous work of art as, “The citizen who, in everyday life has been reduced to a partial function (means-end activity) can be discovered in art as ‘human being’” (48). Art served as an aesthetic, ideal space of a better-ordered society that relieved viewers of pressures to change societal structures (50). He claims that European avant-gardists sought to attack the institutionalization of art and to bring art into the practice of everyday life.

Huyssen connects the motives of historical European avant-garde practices to American postmodern and avant-garde artists in proposing that the radical views and practices of the

(9)

European avant-garde served as an inspiration for the 1960s American postmodernists. Huyssen explains, “Perhaps for the first time in American culture an avantgardist revolt against a tradition of high art and what was perceived as its hegemonic role made political sense” (193). In his view, as high art was institutionalized in art, music, and book industries, avant-garde and postmodern artistic practices aimed to challenge this structure and make art a part of everyday life. Utilizing Huyssen’s theory, I argue that such postmodern art and literature practices aiming to democratize high art include both Weiner’s work as a Conceptual artist and Bernstein’s work as a L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poet.

L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poets and Conceptual artists’ use of language as a means of making more involving works of art is an ongoing topic amongst scholars. While this aspect has been largely discussed, little attention has been paid to the similar use of language within the two artistic fields and no attention has been explicitly paid to the similarities between Bernstein and Weiner’s use of language within their practices.

A discussion of Bernstein’s non-referential poetry that requires reader involvement can be seen in Jerome J. McGann’s “Contemporary Poetry, Alternative Routes.” McGann claims that Bernstein writes “antinarrative” poetry that challenges readers’ expectations of continuity within the language of a poem (638). McGann explains that L=A=N=G=U=G=E poets find the

traditional narrative structure of poems problematic as it frames and limits the experience of the poems to particular historical and social contexts. McGann asserts that Bernstein’s antinarrative poetry typically begins by challenging the reader’s expectations of a poem’s beginning. McGann claims, “Because the fundamental codes of the reading procedure are established at every

beginning, Bernstein’s poems typically start by throwing up barriers and causing problems” (638). McGann explains that a poem’s beginning traditionally provides a context for

(10)

understanding the continuity of the language of the poem. However, according to McGann, Bernstein’s poems challenge expectations of continuity within a poem from the very beginning. Furthermore, he claims that the poems challenge the reader to actually continue reading the poem. McGann observes:

And if we do in fact go on with his text, we will discover that relationships and forms of order can only be had if they are actively made by the reader. We will also discover that such relationships and forms of order are multiple, and that they will shift from reader to reader and from reading to reading. (638)

By creating “antinarrative” poetry, according to McGann, Bernstein’s poems can potentially provide interactive reading experiences that allow multiple personal interpretations to be made.

Allen Fisher’s “Readdressing Constructivism and Conceptual Art: aspects of work factured by Charles Bernstein” also analyzes how Bernstein’s poems require reader involvement in order to create meaning within the language of the poem. Significantly, Fisher also draws connections between Bernstein’s poetic practice and the Conceptual art movement. He situates the beginning of Bernstein’s poetic practice around the beginning of the Conceptual art

movement and claims that Conceptual art influenced Bernstein’s creation of interactive poetry (290 & 295). He illustrates this point by analyzing Bernstein’s poem “Poem”, which begins with fragmented language that can be interpreted as instructions for contemplating an outdoor

environment. Fisher comments on the beginning of the poem in saying, “The occasion is realist description, sitting down and writing and reflecting on figurative language. The occasion is decisive, the time is to facture, to construct to re-understand and affirm Conceptual Art” (294). The simple fragments of language of the poem do not provide a description of a particular environment. Instead, they present a situation for readers to create their own visual environment in their mind. Therefore, in order to interpret the poem, the readers must become actively involved.

(11)

Weiner’s work with language has already received a great deal of attention by critics. In exhibition catalogues and essays on the artist’s practice the democratic effect of Weiner’s use of language has been addressed repeatedly. For example, Alexander Alberro has written about how Weiner’s use of language allows for active viewer participation during interpretation. In Alberro and Alice Zimmerman’s survey of Weiner’s practice “NOT HOW IT SHOULD WERE IT TO BE BUILT BUT HOW IT COULD WERE IT TO BE BUILT”, Alberro comments on this aspect of his artworks during his analysis of Weiner’s “STATEMENT OF INTENT”. Alberro claims:

Firstly, the work decentres the traditional role of the artist by placing equal responsibility for the co-production of meaning with a third party. Secondly, it stresses the need to diminish the distance between beholding and producing, transforming the passive spectator into an active performer of the work itself. (51) In his “STATEMENT OF INTENT”, which defines how his statements should be presented and interpreted, Weiner explains that a viewer may decide if and how they would like to construct one his works. Alberro views this aspect of Weiner’s practice as actively involving viewers by making them equally responsible for co-producing the meaning of the statements.

Alberro also asserts that Weiner’s move to working with material of language was to involve a wider public in viewing and interpreting art. According to Alberro:

The attempt to level cultural and social barriers, to communicate across traditional forms of privileged experience in order to address publics different from those traditionally empowered through privilege (privilege in the sense of having not only the wherewithal, but also the adequate knowledge to reflect on aesthetic experience), was surely a motivating impulse in Weiner’s transition from visual to linguistic models. (50)

Weiner’s work with language is produced in affordable, mass-produced mediums and he considers anyone’s fabrication or interpretation of these works to be equally accurate. In

Alberro’s view, these aspects of Weiner’s statements allow them to communicate across cultural and social barriers by making the works available to a wider public and capable of being

(12)

interpreted without having extensive knowledge of art and culture. In this way, Alberro claims that Weiner’s artworks can be engaged with in an egalitarian process.

Alberro and Donna De Salvo have both commented on how Weiner’s methods of producing his artworks make his practice more accessible to a wider public. In “As Far As the Eye Can See” De Salvo discusses the many languages and mediums Weiner has used to produce his work, including the mediums of matchbooks and coins (70). Weiner gave these matchbooks and coins away for free. De Salvo views Weiner’s practice of giving his works away in mass-produced forms as materializing the exchange between the artist and viewer. Furthermore, she claims, “As it was for many artists working during the 1960s, the act of giving something away is part of a political gesture in that it challenges conventional notions of distribution and private property, including that of the museum” (70). De Salvo explains that Weiner’s practice of giving away artworks created in mass-produced mediums is a political act that has developed from his interest in the basic relationships between art and transportation or art and exchange. Alberro pushes the political gesture of Weiner’s methods of distribution further in claiming that:

By placing his works in public outdoor sites or in the context of industrially produced and distributed books, films, posters and other widely accessible forms such as video tapes, LP records, compact disks and more recently a website on the internet, publics and audiences previously deprived of access to cultural structures at large become suddenly culturally enfranchised. (51)

According to Alberro, Weiner’s artworks created with the artistic medium of language transform ways of presenting and distributing art in ways that make these practices more accessible and egalitarian.

As these scholars have accurately observed, language is used in both Bernstein and Weiner’s practices to make their work more interactive. Moreover, as Fisher has pointed out, the origins of Bernstein’s poetic practice is related historically to the Conceptual art movement.

(13)

While scholars have addressed aspects of Bernstein and Weiner’s practices that are similar, commonalities in their poetics and practices have not yet been fully explored in a comparative manner. In the following chapters I will provide a comparative analysis of Bernstein and Weiner’s use of language as a tool to make more democratic works of poetry and visual art.

My analysis of Weiner and Bernstein’s similar use of language begins with a chapter on their poetics. The first section of this chapter focuses on Weiner and Bernstein’s stance on the use of everyday materials in art. In this section I discuss Weiner’s belief that sculpture is about engaging with materials in order to better understand them, and that language can be used as a sculptural material in order to create works that are more open for interpretation. I then explore Bernstein’s view that poetry should create an experience of the everyday through the use of language as a social material. The next section focuses on Bernstein and Weiner’s ideas on the distribution of poetry and visual art. This section includes a discussion of Bernstein’s work with The Electronic Poetry Center and PennSound, and Weiner’s Collection Public Freehold and work created in mass-produced mediums. The last section of this chapter covers Bernstein and Weiner’s thoughts on how works of literature and visual art should be interpreted. In this section I explain Bernstein’s idea that the use of opaque language can allow for greater involvement with works of poetry during interpretation. I then explore Weiner’s beliefs that language-based

artworks should meet viewers’ needs by allowing them to create their own metaphors and physical art objects based on the artworks’ ideas.

The third chapter consists of analyses of similar techniques used in Weiner and

Bernstein’s works produced in the medium of language that function to make their works more democratic. In the first section I look at how Weiner and Bernstein both use everyday materials in their practices in order to make their work more accessible and open for reader and viewer

(14)

participation. This section includes a study of references made to everyday materials and locations in Weiner’s statements and Bernstein’s collage poems constructed with language appropriated from everyday social discourses. The second section examines Bernstein and Weiner’s use of repetition. In this section I analyze how repetition functions in Bernstein’s poems to create an experience of the acoustic, visual, and semantic properties of language, requiring careful attention to be paid to the patterns and flows of language in the poems. I then look at how Weiner uses repetition to create works that allow for greater viewer participation by involving viewers in a process of constructing and developing a work’s meaning. The last section analyzes Weiner and Bernstein’s use of punctuation. In this section I examine how punctuation marks are used in both practices in order to allow language to carry more possible meanings and also to allow viewers and readers to participate more fully by choosing the words that complete the works

I conclude by arguing that Bernstein and Weiner’s poetics and practices aim to create widely accessible artworks that engage the works’ readers and viewers. I assert that these

theories and practices are developed with the intention of dismantling the dissociated position of autonomous works of art in society in order to create a more democratic function for literature and visual art. I argue that while Bernstein and Weiner’s works are accessible and provide opportunities for readers and viewers to become involved in the co-production of meaning, that in order for their art to truly function democratically within society that a new way of

experiencing art and literature must be learned.

2. Ideas for a Democratically Functioning Art

Bernstein’s poetry and Weiner’s “sculptures” challenge artistic traditions and normative

(15)

and Weiner have written and spoken about their theories on art and literature in order to explain, defend, and promote their practices of art and poetry making. Along with his poetry practice, Bernstein also works as an essayist and theorist and has published collections of his essays and speeches such as A Poetics and My Way: Speeches and Poems, which include his writings on poetics. When Weiner began working with the medium of language in 1968, he formulated his “STATEMENT OF INTENT” to accompany his “sculptures” explaining his intent in regards to the presentation and interpretation of his work (Pelzer 80). Over the years Weiner has altered and added to his “STATEMENT OF INTENT” and has also produced other types of artist writings defining his theories on art.

Although Weiner and Bernstein’s poetics address their particular fields, they share similar ideas on how visual art and literature should be produced, distributed, and received in order for their art to function more democratically within society. In this chapter I will be analyzing these views in a comparative manner. I will begin by discussing Weiner and Bernstein’s thoughts on the use of everyday materials in art and poetry making. I will explain Weiner’s belief that language referring to ordinary materials can be used to produce sculptures that are more open for interpretation and Bernstein’s argument for creating poetry that produces an experience of the everyday, instead of a representation of the everyday. I will continue by exploring Bernstein and Weiner’s ideas behind their methods of distributing their works. Focusing on Bernstein’s work with the Electronic Poetry Center and PennSound, I will explain Bernstein’s belief that the Internet can be used to provide greater access to digital poetry, digital poetics, and sounds files. I will then discuss how Weiner allocates certain works to his Collection Public Freehold and produces works in mass-produced mediums in aim of making art that is both owned by and accessible to the public. Finally, I will cover Bernstein and Weiner’s beliefs that

(16)

the reader of poetry and viewer of art should become actively involved with the works when interpreting them. I will explain Bernstein’s thoughts on how opaque language can be used to create more powerful poetry that allows readers to become more fully engaged with the works. Then I will discuss Weiner’s belief that artworks should not be metaphorical, but should present materials for viewers to use to create their own personal metaphors for better understanding their material realities.

2.1 Production

Weiner believes that an artist’s purpose is to provide a methodology that viewers of their art can utilize for understanding the relationship between humans and objects on broad and specific levels, and that this methodology can be presented through the use of everyday materials (Gumpert 128). Weiner believes that art must provide viewers with a methodology, not an ideology. He explains his opinion as, “A methodology is something that you can use to deal with something else. An ideology is something that you try to make everything come around to fit into” (Lebeer 72). In his view, his artworks provide methods of engaging with materials that allow a better understanding of the materials to be developed. He believes that art should ask questions and function as an investigation into how humans relate to the work’s materials

(Lebeer 70). He perceives the act of interpreting art as seeking answers to questions pertaining to the connection between the viewer and the artwork’s materials. In his perspective, methodologies developed from understanding materials within an art context may be used to understand

material reality on a broader level.

In order for art to provide a method for reaching a better understanding of materials, Weiner believes that art must represent an empirical reality. In Weiner’s “Notes On & About Art” he explains his understanding of the function of art as, “IT DOES NOT TELL THE

(17)

POTENTIAL & CAPABILITIES OF AN OBJECT (MATERIAL) BUT / PRESENTS A REALITY CONCERNING THAT RELATIONSHIP” (124). Weiner believes that art must be based in reality and represent facts concerning materials. When representing reality through the use of language, he believes the representation serves to simultaneously represent the idea of the materials and present the actual materials themselves (Leffingwell 153). This can be explained by his belief that when a person reads one his statements that they construct the work in their minds in order to understand it. Since the works are constructed mentally through the act of reading, Weiner sees the physical objects as unnecessary for the work to exist. However, he believes that in order for the art to function effectively that it must represent an empirical reality.

To create his statements Weiner experiments and works with materials such as plywood or stone in his studio in aim of fully understanding them (Gumpert 124). Due to the fact that his artistic practice consists of this studio work, he sees himself as a “materialist” and a “studio artist”, not a Conceptual artist (Obrist 423). He explains his studio practice as:

When I find myself with materials I don’t quite understand, I go out and schlepp a lot of it to the studio. I’m still basically a studio artist. I play with materials, I’ll build a piece, I’ll schlepp a stone, I’ll make ice, I’ll do the whole thing. (Gumpert 124)

He performs this work with materials as research on the relationship between human beings and objects. Once Weiner finds that the objects or processes he creates in his studio function as a sculpture, he translates this observation into language (Temkin and Ravenal 320). In his view, this process of representing an artist’s observation through an artistic medium is consistent with traditional art making practices.

Due to the fact that Weiner’s statements reference materials and processes involving materials he claims that they are a part of a sculptural practice. Through his “sculptures” he aims

(18)

to present a space for viewers to encounter materials in order to better understand their relationship to them. He explains his view on the function of sculptures as:

For me, the making of sculpture, the placing of sculpture within cultural

environments and in the public, is about allowing people to deal with the idea of mass, of other materials, the dignity of other materials, and to be able to figure out how to get around them if they are dangerous, get over them if they are easy and lie on them if they are sensual. (“Benjamin” 13)

Weiner perceives the act of interpreting a sculpture as coming to a better understanding of the materials that form the work. Weiner sees this aspect of engaging with a sculpture as significant because he believes that the way humans understand their relationship with materials affects how they use the materials (Gumpert 123).

When creating his “sculptures”, Weiner finds language to be the most effective medium as it allows him to work with the general idea of materials instead of with specific objects. Weiner claims, “When you deal with things as philosophical relationships to society, you begin to realize that the content is the most essential thing. It’s not the context, but the content of what you’re presenting” (Gumpert 124). For Weiner, the physical art object is not important, which he sees as the work’s context, but the idea behind the production of the artwork, which he

understands as the work’s content.

Moreover, he believes that when the idea behind creating an artwork is presented through an art object that the art object is considered to be an individual work of art, which he refers to as a “unique work of art” (Sharp 44). He finds this to be problematic because he believes that when an idea is presented through an individual work of art that the idea becomes restricted to the art object. Weiner explains, “I began to realize that by placing a unique object in front of a person with the portent art upon that unique object, you were saying, “This is the way you must see something for it to be art,” whereas basically what art is dealing with are general ideas” (Oliva

(19)

52). Weiner believes that artworks represent basic concepts, but that art objects prevent the works’ ideas from being understood on a broad level. Although he does not believe that language is better than any other artistic medium, he finds that within his practice that language functions as an artistic medium that allows for the general idea behind his artworks to be best

communicated. He finds artworks that communicate broad ideas to be more effective since, in his perspective, they allow the viewers to relate the artwork’s ideas to their own lives.

In order to create “sculptures” in the medium of language that provide an opportunity for viewers to experience materials, Weiner references everyday materials in his work. He explains how the use of everyday materials allows him to create artworks without the use of physical materials as:

Materialization is not necessary for the presentation. The materials that I use, which I refer to, are ordinary materials that people are familiar with. Stone, paper, water, mercury, metals are not exotic materials, people can come across them every day. It’s possible that a material that to me seems very ordinary, very commonplace doesn’t exist in a particular small town, here or in another country, but that would be my mistake. (Poinsot 182)

Weiner aims to use materials that are familiar and accessible by all viewers. By referencing these everyday materials through language, he believes that his statements can be interpreted without requiring the physical materials to be presented. In his perspective, artworks that are not discrete physical objects are better functioning as they allow viewers to interpret the works by using the materials in their own lives.

In Weiner’s perspective, art communicates broad ideas that can be used by viewers to discover aspects of material reality that usually remain unnoticed. Weiner believes that an aspect of material reality that can be discovered through engaging with artworks is the sensual quality of everyday materials. For example, he finds that pennies have a sensual nature since they are made of copper, which conducts electricity. He explains, “Obviously, the passing of the penny is

(20)

also a passing of electrical energy. There is a sensuality in that, there is a jolt. We’re not trained to notice it. Art is supposed to show us the things we’re not trained to notice” (Temkin and Ravenal 320). In Weiner’s perspective art presents an opportunity for viewers to perceive unacknowledged properties of materials in their reality. It is his belief that by better

understanding materials, one can better understand their relationship to the materials. Moreover, he claims that when a person better understands their relationship to materials, they can

potentially come to a better understand their position in the world (“Intervention” 132). Bernstein also draws from the everyday in his work utilizing referenced, quoted, and at times playfully mocked language as his poetic medium in aim of creating a space for readers to experience the social materiality of language (Bernstein and Sanders 94). By addressing

language as a social medium, he attempts to overcome the problems he identifies in depicting the ordinary through transparent poetic language. Bernstein claims that when using transparent language, “Instead of creating an experience of, or in, the ordinary, you have created a

representation of it. Transparency, in trying to picture the ordinary, at the same time removes the reader from it” (“The Art”). He claims that although poets who write poetry with transparent language attempt to create an experience of the ordinary, that their use of language and

representations of everyday subjects actually create a poetic experience removed from ordinary life. Therefore, Bernstein finds poetry that engages with the ordinary and the material through the use of language as a social material to be more effective.

One problem Bernstein finds with representing the everyday in poetry is that when a poet attempts to represent the ordinary in transparent language, in his view, the result is an

objectification of the ordinary. In his essay “The Art and Practice of the Ordinary” Bernstein uses the example of Charles Baudelaire’s poem “À une mendiante rousse” (“To a Begging

(21)

Redhead”) to illustrate how transparent language objectifies a poem’s subject. He claims that while Baudelaire’s achievement in bringing the traditional, elevated poetic subject down into ordinary life is significant, that he is still depicting the ordinary subject of the poem from his detached, privileged position of a bohemian sitting in a cafe. Bernstein argues that objectified representations of an ordinary subject through transparent language are problematic because they remove the subject from the everyday. Therefore, he claims:

I am interested in a poetics of the everyday that attempts to break down this objectification of the ordinary. That requires a kind of writing that tries to break down the relationship between seer and seen, the observer and the observed. (“The Art”)

Since he does not view traditional representations of the ordinary as effective, Bernstein argues that poetry should engage with ordinary instead.

Another problem with representing the everyday in poetry, according to Bernstein, is that ordinary speech cannot be reproduced in poetry. He claims, “Vernacular diction is not, however, the same as the transcription of spoken English. In fact, spoken American English has a very complex structure, and there is no simple or single method of presenting it in writing” (“The Art”). In his view, transcribed language is not an exact presentation of spoken language. He finds that attempts at creating accurate written presentations of ordinary spoken language, which include such details as the pausing and faltering of the speaker, appear abnormal to readers.

Moreover, he sees attempting to reproduce ordinary speech as problematic due to the fact that there is not an ordinary language, but instead many socially constructed languages. He explains, “In fact, normalcy of language (that is to say, standardization) is not a natural fact of human being but a highly controlled social institution to which people are forced to conform” (“The Art”). In “The Art and Practice of the Ordinary” Bernstein provides the examples of African American English and Standard English as two socially constructed languages. He

(22)

explains that while all socially constructed languages such as African American English and Standard English are equally valid, English speakers learn to perceive Standard English as normal. Since Standard English is perceived as normal, he sees attempts at creating an accurate written representation of a spoken dialect as appearing abnormal. Bernstein explains:

So my point is that even for the speakers of the dialect, dialect poetry seems odd, because they are not used to seeing dialect in a literary context; and for nondialect speakers, the very ordinariness of dialect is what makes it apparently exotic. (“The Art”)

Although the written form of dialect poetry may more accurately represent spoken language, because the written form is unusual to both speakers of the dialect and speakers of other dialects the poetry does not create an experience of the ordinary.

A further problem Bernstein finds in the use of language in poetry is that, in his opinion, language carries values and meanings derived from its functional use within society. Bernstein explains his view on the way poetic language is perceived as, “Verbal language is commonly associated with information giving, the law, and logical or discursive formations. Those associations die much harder than they do, for example, in visual or musical language”

(Bernstein and Sanders 93). Due to the normative contexts and functions of specific vocabulary, phrases, and linguistic structures, Bernstein claims the language used in a poem cannot be thought to simply convey the poet’s ideas. He believes that grammatical structures and ways of speaking and writing reproduce values. He also believes that expressions for communicating emotions and directness in poetry are literary constructs that do not allow for direct expression. Therefore, he claims that language must be understood to function as a social material. Bernstein argues, “If a poet does not confront how these concepts of directness and emotionality are the objects of literary manipulations, then she or he is never able to achieve directness in poetry” (“The Art”). According to Bernstein, poets must explore the values communicated through

(23)

standard grammatical structures and phrases in order to produce poetry that achieves direct communication.

More direct communication through poetry, in Bernstein’s opinion, can be achieved by writing poems that engage with the everyday. The everyday, Bernstein believes, is not a style but a practice. Therefore, instead of representing the everyday, he attempts to engage the everyday in his writing. By engaging with the everyday, he aims to create an experience of language as a social material. Bernstein finds poetry that creates an aesthetic experience of language, allowing for reflection on the social materiality of language to create the most direct form of

communication.

By creating an experience of the ordinary as a social material Bernstein believes that poetry can provide a space for readers to discover the values and ideas communicated through everyday discourses. He explains:

I am less interested in talking about the aesthetics of the ordinary than

participating in the fight for the ordinary. For the ordinary is always contested ground. For this reason, I have been very interested in understanding the problem of the politics of poetic form, rather than the politics of poetic subject matter. The politics of poetry has partly to do with its character of resistance, its recalcitrance, its awkwardness, understood as a crucial space for reflection and thought on the political realm, on values. (“The Art”)

In Bernstein’s view, the compositional styles used to write poetry signal to readers that the language should be contemplated and meanings should be drawn from the language. Therefore, Bernstein believe that language from everyday discourses is approached differently and

considered more thoroughly when it is composed in a poetic format. He finds that this provides an opportunity for the values and ideas communicated through the language to be recognized. Beyond providing an experience of the everyday, though, Bernstein also aims to understand the problems faced when reading poetry and make reading poetry a more common practice in

(24)

everyday life by engaging with the ordinary through his poetry. Thus, Bernstein not only attempts to surpass problems with traditional ways of communicating through poetry by

engaging with everyday in his writing, but he also aims to critique the institution of literature and explore how poetry functions at a social level.

2.2 Distribution

Bernstein aims to provide greater access to digital poetry, digital poetics, and audio recordings of poetry through his work with the Electronic Poetry Center and PennSound. In doing so,

Bernstein also aims to promote selected contemporary poets and to provide an alternative to paper formats of poetry (Cummings, Marinaccio, and Bernstein 8 & “Making” 964-965).

Bernstein is the Executive Editor of the Electronic Poetry Center, which is an online resource for digital poetry and poetics sponsored by the State University of New York at Buffalo and the University of Pennsylvania (“Electronic Poetry Center – Introduction”). He extended his work with the Electronic Poetry Center by cofounding and co-directing PennSound with Al Filreis (“Making” 964). PennSound is a project of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Programs of Contemporary Writing that works to archive and produce new audio files of recorded poetry (PennSound). He views his work with these Internet projects as significant due to the exchange economy of poetry and the potential that the Internet affords for increasing the recognition of the performative dimension of poetry.

In Bernstein’s perspective, money is not the motivation behind the writing of poetry. In fact, he views the economy of poetry as being opposed to profit. He claims that due to poetry’s noncommercial status that it is often produced in the cheapest means possible. Bernstein explains, “In an economy in which direct profit is not the aim, losses from the cost of reproduction are minimized in an effort of [sic] maximize exchange value” (Denut). He

(25)

perceives the buying and selling of poetry as taking place in an exchange economy separate from the larger economy. While he sees poetry as having great value for poets and poetry readers, he sees poetry’s lack of economic value as negatively affecting its number of readers. Bernstein claims, “The exchanges that result are models of ‘democratic social space,’ and so very American in one sense, but also deeply foreign to a culture, in the U.S., for which monetary profit or prescribed religious principals [sic] are the main sources of value” (Denut). He believes that American society pays most attention to commercial enterprises producing goods with economic value. He sees this as causing many poets to not receive the deserved attention for their work (Cummings, Marinaccio, and Bernstein 8). He thinks that many potential readers and culture at large are underserved by their lack of access to the work created by many

contemporary poets. By curating poetry for the Electronic Poetry Center, Bernstein aims to provide greater access to the poetry selected for the website for both the benefit of the poets and potential readers of the poetry (Cummings, Marinaccio, and Bernstein 8).

Bernstein’s work with PennSound aims to provide greater access to audio recordings of poetry in order to revive the performative dimension of poetry. In his essay “Making Audio Visible: The Lessons of Visual Language for the Textualization of Sound” Bernstein recounts how Homer’s The Odyssey began as an open, oral performance and developed into a fixed alphabetic text (970). He understands the creation of an alphabetic text as a process of rationalizing speech and separating it from its sonic form (971). He claims:

The new technology of phonetic writing could be said to have rationalized, or dominated, speech, and this form of rationalization is experienced, in retrospect, as a kind of fall, a break from the unity of word and thing that music and poetry

may be felt to reverse. (971)

While poetry’s alphabetic form allows it to be reproduced and recorded, a side effect of this technology is that the performative aspect of poetry, in Bernstein’s view, has lost its significance.

(26)

Bernstein claims that although textual scholarship and literary criticism have not

generally acknowledged a poem’s performance as a part of the poem, that the acoustic and vocal dimension of a poem should not be considered separate from the text (963). He argues:

The audio text may be one more generally discounted destabilizing textual elements, an element that undermines our ability to fix and present any single definitive, or even stable, text of the poem. Grammaphony is not an alternative to textuality but rather throws us deeper into its folds. (963)

He sees the performative dimension of poetry as possibly destabilizing a text by prohibiting the possibility for designating a single definitive version of poem and not allowing for coherence within a poem. However, he believes that the performative dimension of a poem is an inherent part of the work and should be recognized as such.

Bernstein views the lack of access to sound files as contributing to the devaluation of the acoustic dimension of a poem (964). This belief was a motivation for working to digitalize an archive of recorded poetry at PennSound (964). He sees the possibility for many changes in the way that poems are produced, studied, and enjoyed arising from the availability of freely accessible audio recordings of poetry on the Internet (965). Bernstein thinks that two possible implications of increased access to audio recordings of poetry could be that sound recordings could become a common teaching material and that poets could create poems without a written text (965-966). He also sees these recordings as possibly effecting readers of poetry by allowing the experience of listening to performances of poetry to become more portable and mobile and for a poem’s acoustic dimension to be viewed as a more valuable element of the poem that could be enjoyed while driving, exercising, or relaxing (965-966).

Through his work with PennSound and the Electronic Poetry Center Bernstein aims to create greater access to digital poetry, digital poetics, and sound files. While he sees the Internet as already an important means of promoting and distributing poetry, he believes that as the

(27)

electronic space of the Internet becomes more commercial that the presence of poetry throughout the Internet will begin to diminish (Seminary Co-op Bookstore). Moreover, as the electronic space of the Internet expands, he believes the need for editing and intervening in order to prevent abuse of the space will increase. Therefore, Bernstein finds it important that curated poetry sites exist in order to maintain a space for poetry related dialogue and exchange to take place.

Weiner has also developed distribution procedures with the aim of making his work widely accessible to the public. One of these procedures is the act of allocating certain works to the Collection Public Freehold. The Collection Public Freehold is a collection of his artworks that has been designated as public property never to be bought or sold to institutions or collectors (Eichhorn 371). He established the Collection Public Freehold in order to allow those who cannot afford his artworks to be able to use them without having to steal them (371-372). Another procedure Weiner uses when distributing his works is presenting them through highly affordable, mass-produced mediums such as books (371). These distribution procedures have developed from his belief that all works of art should be considered equal regardless of their medium. Weiner explains this belief as:

A poster is a poster, a book is book, and a piece of sculpture is a piece of

sculpture. Where is the hierarchy? The market has given these things a financial hierarchy, but they are all necessary. You were turned on by Lautrec posters before you were turned on by Lautrec’s paintings. If he hadn’t paid attention to those posters, he wouldn’t have been able to communicate with you what he was trying to communicate. (Obrist 424)

Weiner believes that money is the reason that works produced in certain mediums are perceived as having a greater value than those produced in other mediums. By creating artworks that are for sale and presenting artworks in museums, and also creating works that are public property and presenting artworks on the page of book he aims to challenge value systems that relate the

(28)

intrinsic value of an object with its economic value. In doing so, he also allows his art to be available to a wider public.

The Collection Public Freehold, according to a 1982 interview with Weiner, consists of approximately half of the works in his oeuvre (Gumpert 127). The pieces in this collection are designated as Public Freehold works at the time they are made public through their presentation in such a form as a book or an exhibition piece, which is the time that Weiner considers the works to exist. Weiner claims that these works are regarded as equal to all of his other artworks and that their status as a Public Freehold work has no influence when curating pieces for

exhibitions. While he includes the pieces in the collection in order for them to function as public property that may be used freely by anyone, he does include the stipulation that a fabrication of one of his “sculptures” cannot be presented as his work unless he grants permission for the use of his name. Weiner explains this stipulation as:

If they take a work of mine that’s freehold and put it on their wall, I see it the way you see a reproduction of a Dali or of a Cèzanne or something else. It’s not the best thing, but it’s what it is. But if they say it’s mine without asking permission, then they’ve broken their rules. (Eichhorn 372)

Although Weiner aims for Public Freehold works to be public property that may be used freely by anyone, he believes that he is entitled to only allow his name to be used upon his consent. However, he allows anyone to fabricate pieces from the Collection Public Freehold as reproductions of his work without his permission.

Weiner explains the name Collection Public Freehold as a play on the term “public freehold”, which is used to denote land that has become common property through long term leases in countries where land is owned and leased by the state. He claims, “It’s a comment on the fact that art is essentially authoritarian in the sense that if you want to own it you have to buy it and there is no ‘art for the people’” (Gumpert 127). Weiner sees art as generally functioning as

(29)

a service for those who can afford the artworks, instead of as a service for the benefit of the public. This understanding of the function of art is problematic for Weiner due to his political beliefs. Weiner explains, “I am a socialist politically, and I believe that the needs of the populace should be taken care of by the production of the populace” (127). He believes that art should be available for the benefit of the public and that its status as public art should bear no influence on the art’s perceived value. Weiner claims, “Just because a piece was in the Guggenheim doesn’t mean it should be more expensive than a piece that wasn’t” (127). He established the Collection Public Freehold as a gesture aimed at challenging common value judgments formed on works of art based on their price and method of presentation. This gesture also serves to create greater access to his artworks by allowing them to be used free of cost.

Weiner also produces his work in affordable, mass-produced mediums in order to make them available to the public. Even when his statements are presented in mass-produced

mediums, he claims that they function equally to his statements presented in other artistic mediums. Weiner explains his belief in the equal value of all versions of his statements as:

It’ll turn up in one show, then you’ll see it in stark black type in a book. Then you’ll be walking down the street and there’ll be a billboard. Or you’ll hear it on the radio, or you’ll see it on a museum in bronze letters built into the wall permanently. Now that’s the performance venue, but the work doesn’t change. (Temkin and Ravenal 322)

According to Weiner, his “sculptures” are constituted of the language that form the statements and the modes of presentation function as the works’ stage-sets. Therefore, he considers his statements that are spoken in his films, sung in his songs, and printed in books as all functioning equally as sculptures. While he believes that all forms are equal, he chooses to produce works in certain forms in order to allow them to be more accessible. For example, Weiner ensures that every one of his works is presented in one of his books so that they are widely accessible

(30)

(Eichhorn 371). He believes that books are the most viable method to use to allow his work to reach a wide audience (Hoffberg 420). In his opinion, artworks that are presented in books can disseminate into culture by being transported and shared. He also produces works in music and film in order to allow the works to be more affordable and accessible. Weiner explains, “Putting the work in the context of music cheapens it and at the same time heightens the fact that it has a relevance to our society” (“Benjamin” 30). By using various mediums to present his

“sculptures”, Weiner aims to make his work more accessible by making it more affordable and also more relatable to the public.

Underlying Weiner’s methods of distributing his work is the belief that the art he creates does not need to be bought (Gumpert 127). Weiner claims:

You see, the price becomes almost unimportant because all the art’s given away when you think about it. I go through a lot of trouble to get things published all the time. So the pieces are published, the information is public, anybody that really is excited can make a reproduction. So, in fact, the art is all public freehold. (Norvell 27)

In Weiner’s view, when a viewer reads one of his statements they are simultaneously

constructing the work in their minds. Once a viewer constructs the work in their mind, he sees them as then owning that fabrication of the work. Therefore, when Weiner does sell the artworks not belonging to the Collection Public Freehold, he still sees them as remaining available for the benefit of the public. Weiner claims, “All of my work is like a public park that somebody buys and maintains, because they have the money, but they let people come in and use the park” (Eichhorn 372). Many of the works that are sold to private collectors and institutions have already previously been distributed through widely accessible mediums such as books and posters. Therefore, a work that is owned by a private collector is still accessible to the public. Weiner explains the action of buying one of his artworks as, “What they’re doing is, they’re

(31)

saying ‘I think this is super, and I want to put my name next to it.’ I take it as a compliment. But the work is not hidden from other people” (Eichhorn 372). While Weiner follows the traditional practice of an artist by selling and presenting art in exhibitions, he also aims to keep his works accessible by allocating a portion of them to the Collection Public Freehold and distributing them through mass-produced mediums.

2.3 Reception

Poems, according to Bernstein, are texts created for proactive reading. When engaging with a poem through proactive reading, readers are to become “absorbed” into the text. Bernstein defines “absorption” by such terms as “engrossing”, “attention intensification”, and

“spellbinding” (Artifice). Examples of poetic compositions that he sees as producing absorptive effects are odes and ballads written about love or religious beliefs. These types of poems are created with transparent language, traditional metrical patterns, and an apparent subject matter. In his opinion, all of these elements work together to absorb the reader into the experience produced by the images and ideas described in the poems. On the other hand, he considers literary techniques such as addressing the reader, digressing off of topic, and including dense and irregular vocabulary as disrupting a reader’s absorption into a poem. He finds that these poetic techniques prohibit absorption into the images and ideas of the poem by making readers aware and critical of the poem as a text. Although these poetics techniques, in Bernstein’s opinion, do not allow readers to become absorbed into the experience produced by the poem’s subject matter, he finds that they can be used to create poems that engage readers more intensely and provoke thinking on a broader level.

In “Artifice of Absorption” Bernstein uses the examples of Michel Leiris’ observations of spirit possession ceremonies held by the Zar cult of Ethiopia and Bertolt Brecht’s concept of

(32)

Verfremdungseffekt or “the distancing effect” to support his argument that poetry that involves

readers in a process of critical thinking during interpretation can create an intensely engaging experience. During Leiris’ fieldwork with the Zar cult of Ethiopia he observed possession

ceremonies in which he perceived the participants as believing the individual was possessed by a spirit. Leiris related these ceremonies to “lived theater”. He also observed ceremonies in which he perceived the possession as being doubted. Leiris related these ceremonies to “acted theater”. He described the ceremonies with unbelievable possessions as likely providing a cathartic experience. Instead of participating as passive observers or being consumed in the experience of the ceremony, Leiris observed that participants could become entirely engaged by questioning the possession and, to some extent, inventing for themselves the scenes of the possession. In Bernstein’s perspective, Leiris’ observations relate to Brecht’s distancing effect. The distancing effect is a concept used in theatre that includes the use of techniques that make the plays appear unfamiliar to the audience members in order to prevent them from becoming caught up

emotionally in the plotline. By remaining separate from the plot as observers, the audience is to become more engaged with the play by critiquing the characters and their actions as the story unfolds.

Bernstein connects Leiris’ observation and Brecht’s technique together to conclude that the most powerful theater performances maintain a level of artifice. He claims that artifice enables spectators to become actively engaged when watching a performance. Bernstein relates this claim to poetry to declare that:

This suggests that the critical

reader needs something to engage

her or his

(33)

& that what may appear antiabsorptive in one context contributes to a fuller engagement with a work in another. (Artifice)

Bernstein views poetry that involves readers in critically considering the poems’ language as producing an intensely absorptive effect. Instead of becoming consumed by the images and ideas of a poem, readers remain attentive and critical of the text. Bernstein views this active

involvement with a poem as producing a deeper level of reader engagement than that of traditional works of poetry written with transparent language.

Furthermore, Bernstein believes that when interpreting poetry in an active and critical manner that formal aspects of the poem should be considered. In his opinion, a poem’s content, meaning its subject matter, is not the equivalent of the poem’s meaning. He views the acoustic, syntactic, and visual elements of a poem as also being meaningful. Bernstein argues:

. . . The semantic strata of a poem should not be understood as only those elements to which a relatively fixed connotative or denotative meaning can be ascribed, for this would restrict meaning to the exclusively recuperable elements of language—a restriction that if literally applied would make meaning impossible. (Artifice)

Bernstein claims that a poem’s formal elements are not meaningless, decorative features and that they also do not merely contribute to the meaning of the poem. He declares that the experiences created by these elements are meaningful, even if their meanings are difficult to identify. For Bernstein, meanings develop from conscious and subconscious thoughts, and objective and subjective understandings of language. Therefore, he claims that a poem’s meaning cannot be

(34)

understood as being produced from only the parts of poem that have a fixed, identifiable meaning. Instead, he argues that poetry should be regarded as an “epistemological inquiry” (Artifice). He believes that the meanings to be drawn from a poem should not be limited to a poem’s subject matter. Rather, Bernstein claims that poetry reading should be taken as an opportunity to discover how the acoustic, visual, and semantic aspects of language contribute to human understanding.

Juxtaposition, for example, is a syntactic technique that Bernstein views as capable of being used to create meaning within a poem (“Semblance” n. pag.). He understands syntax as serving such purposes as to form ideas, images, descriptions, and representations through language. He explains his understanding of the effect of syntax as, “Sentences that follow standard grammatical patterns allow the accumulating references to enthrall the reader by diminishing diversions from a constructed representation” (“Semblance” n. pag.). He believes that when a poem’s language is created with standard grammatical patterns that the possible meanings that can be found within the language is limited. This allows reader to become absorbed into the poem’s coherent content. He illustrates this argument with the following example, “‘The lamp sits atop the table in the study’ – each word narrowing down the

possibilities of each other, limiting the interpretation of each word’s meaning by creating an ever more specific context” (“Semblance” n. pag.). Through this example Bernstein aims to show how language that follows standard grammatical patterns creates specific images and

descriptions that limit the meanings that can be found within the language.

In his opinion, sentences, phrases, and words can be juxtaposed together within a poem to create meaning by drawing attention to the visual and grammatical formations of the language and the meanings they hold. He argues that juxtaposition allows language to be presented in a

(35)

less restricted manner that urges the meanings of language to be considered and questioned and unexpected connections to be made. He explains the effect of poetry created with juxtaposed sentences as:

The text operates at a level that not only provokes projections by each sentence but by the sequencing of the sentences suggests lines or paths for them to proceed along. At the same time, circumspection about the nature and meaning of the projections is called forth. The result is both a self-reflectiveness and an intensification of the items/conventions of the social world

projected/suggested/provoked. (“Semblance” n. pag.)

Since juxtaposed sentences within a poem do not connect in an apparent manner, he claims that the possible meanings of each of the individual sentences must be considered. In his perspective, the ordering of the sentences implies possible ways to form connections between the meanings of each of the individual sentences in order to interpret the poem. When contemplating the meaning of the sentences and drawing connections between them there is an opportunity for discovering the meanings embedded in the individual words and grammatical formations that make up the sentences. In this way, he see juxtaposition as a syntactical technique that can be used to create meanings in poetry by drawing attention to the grammatical structures and the ideas they contain.

Bernstein argues that poetry that involves readers during interpretation by provoking contemplation on the content and formal aspects of poems can create a more engaging

experience for readers. He believes that interactive poems that encourage critical thinking about language can provide an opportunity for coming to better understandings of the values and ideas present in words and grammatical formations. He explains the importance of actively engaging poetry readers as:

. . . For one thing,

the more intensified, technologized absorption made possible by

nonabsorptive means may get the reader absorbed into a more ideologized

(36)

or politicized space; if not to say, less programmatically,

one that really can engross: not ersatz but, at last, the real goods. (Artifice)

Although traditional poetry written with transparent language can produce a captivating

experience that draws the reader into the poem’s ideas and images, Bernstein believes that poems that involve readers in an active process of contemplating the poem’s language and formal elements can encourage thinking on a deeper level that includes ideological and political considerations. Instead of providing a source of entertainment, Bernstein finds that poems that actively engage readers can provide an opportunity for coming to understandings of how language shapes human values and beliefs.

Weiner also believes that art should provide opportunities for better understanding reality. Art, according to Weiner, is not about presenting an artist’s creative accomplishments. Rather, he understands art as a sophisticated version of the elementary school public speaking activity “show and tell”. He explains, “Art has reached a point where it realises it’s not about creativity. It’s about human beings taking some kind of voyage in relationship to objects and taking the trouble to come back and tell somebody else. Art is all about show and tell” (“Intervention” 140-141). Weiner understands “telling” as communicating knowledge. In his perspective, knowledge that is “told” does not necessarily have to be correct. He believes art should “show and tell” about the artist’s observations of the relationship between human beings and materials. He claims that these observations do not present truths, but pose questions that can be used to better understand reality. Weiner explains, “Art is not about explanations. Art is not about solutions. Art is about taking empirical reality and presenting it” (“Intervention” 141). If artworks present an observation instead of an explanation, then Weiner finds that they allow

Language as a Democratic Artistic Medium: A Comparative Analysis of Charles Bernstein and Lawrence Weiner's Poetics and Avant-Garde Practices Involving the Material of Language