in answer to Amy King's query about innovative poets (on new poetry list)
well, many innovative poets reject the term experimental because an experiment CAN go awry
another reason is that the query the utility of the scientific method in art making, which "experiment" can refer directly or indirectly to that
still another reason some prefer "innovative" is for the "nov" part -- they are following the Pound dictum, "make it new"
in this way, it is easy to consider that what is new is not always good, or an improvement -- however *useful* innovation as a practice or habit or value may seem
I would put as a list of poets who are younger than the language group:
flarf poets (though many are sculpting toward form)
conceptual / performance art-rooted poets (though in this group, people like the Antins and Kenny G and Bergvall are/were "newer" when they started than the now-conceptual poets, although Craig is an interesting case since he is so innovative for his institution they -- at least during and exchange I had with him when I was about to visit Utah -- didn't consider to be a poet (aside from Paisley)
new form poets -- Jena Osman and Juliana Spahr -- and I am listing them after "the conceptual poets" because new form is largely CONCEPTUAL form
I things some other interesting poets who are younger than the language group are:
Adeena Karasick: although her use of theory and sound/semantics is perhaps not new, in combination it is, and she is first doing what she's doing who is doing this now
myself, because I think I'm doing a variety pack of new things: but I consider myself experimental rather than innovative, because I don't think there's much that's completely new, especially in the arts and humanities
"born digital" poets such as Jason Nelson and Stephanie Strickland and Janet Holmes' F2F
among the visual poets, I like David Baptiste-Chirots stuff and Mikel And's stuff -- I think it is new and fresh (though they've been doing it for quite sometime)
among the collaborationists, I think those with a music background, Like Sheila Murphy and Jukka Pekka Kervinen are doing something "after Coolidge" that few others have pursued
some thoughts while on hold:
this first I had yesterday while cleaning up after dinner, tho:
one of the things which unifies many of the younger innovative poets is *innovative process" -- thinking in relation to Strickland's useful "born digital" term, certainly any use of computers, hypertext, code, and internet is going to involve a different process of composition -- a new one, at least varying from babbage to turing to mac hypercard to internet search to web 2.0 new -- unless old games/tools, now available online, are used
I place flarf firmly here as well, even if the born digital or google sculpy is ultimately in service of a NY 3rd gen poem. or a formal poem, it is made in a new way
this IS related to my thought while pruning about roget, johnson, and changes in word choice, rhyme, meter, etc. but that is also a change in access of information
anyways, new PROCESS as a subsection of innovation -- this also relates to experiment, which is a process-oriented idea (though can involve experiments in content/subject as well as...)
back to change of access to information, this changes things like relation to source of course, and we are seeing a migration toward more researched projects, a stronger relationship to other texts, but also this is part of the larger change in the zeitgeist
but also -- poetry. new news -- guess what? people get news differently now.
so looking briefly while on hold at Silliman's blog -- most recent post: is all history a record of change? is vision mostly a perception of movement?