How does the poem differ in its two recensions? What reading does spoken word (orality) privilege? What does the textual writing space (unconventional as it is) play in the transmission of meaning?
Taylor Mali creates and performs slam poetry across the country. An intrigued supporter took one of these poems and set the audio of Mali's voice to a visually stimulating clip that displayed each word in a picturesque way. Needless to say, the two presentations of the same piece had very different effects on those watching. In the original piece, we watch as Mali performs his poem, seeing each facial expression and movement in his body. The second time, we hear that same voice, yet we see the lines of the poetry dancing on the screen. This gives such meaning to each individual word, because now, no one can miss anything. The format of the words and their constant motion keeps the viewers interested, and the pictures created with the actual lyrics captivates everyone. At one particular moment, Mali uses the analogy of tree limbs being chopped down. Upon the first hearing, I did not grasp the full meaning of the metaphor. But when I saw the words form a tree with delicate leaves and watched as it was chopped down, I formed a deeper appreciation for the text. In the end, it comes down to a battle of the senses. It is the visual versus the aural, the eyes versus the ears. What I prefer about the typographic display of the poem is its employment of both. In combining sight with sound, the creators found a way to maintain a sense of intrigue throughout the entire work, and left the audience with more senses remembering.
This was good in that it really looked at the difference between the two forms of the poem and used the differences to show how you thought the one was better then the other.
ReplyDelete