In Camera 2 & 3

Slideshow 2

In Camera May 2010 #1 from Photographers Sheffield on Vimeo.

slideshow 3

In Camera May 2010 #2 from Photographers Sheffield on Vimeo.

Here are the second and third poems from the In Camera exhibit.  The second one is a worse example of the first.  I thought the first one wasn’t too bad an attempt, and it is pretty annoying that the second try is worse.  I do think that my frame of mind when I viewed the slideshow played a big part.  I had less time, and I was trying to look at two slideshows on the same day (it turns out I have the stamina of an octogenarian).  No matter how much time I have spent on it since, I’m just tinkering, really, and not getting anywhere.

Is this to do with the transience of experience, that I’m trying to rewrite an afternoon.  I can go back and view the slideshow again, of course, but I haven’t done because it would be so completely different that it wouldn’t be redrafting a poem, just beginning a new one (also something I could do, but am put off by my failure!).  There are things about it that I like, the moving up instead of down on the first line seems to suggest the way different aspects of an image can become more striking after seeing it for a couple of seconds.  There’s definitely some conflict in the way the cracks are raised above the flagstones.  Don’t know what this means, if anything.  Maybe something to do with the 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional image?

Also quite like the end and the pylons, the repetition of references across different images, the way that this comes through despite the relatively random times I looked at/up from the paper.  If I had studied the slideshow, I would have wanted to bring out the way images were linked in this way.  It’s interesting to know that this came through without such deliberate thought.

The third poem is a slightly different approach, trying to bring the speaker in more directly as an influence of how the slideshow is perceived.  This has an overall effect of making the poem more comparable with a more usual? idea of poetry, which is problematic because it doesn’t hold up very well, I think, if that’s what we’re looking at.  I do think that the speaker here is more definitely filtering the experience of the slideshow, and I think that has more mileage in it.

I think, eventually, I could make a decent poem out of this one, perhaps because it feels more natural, but also because it gives the writer more control than the others, that I can write the speaker in to a greater or lesser extent and manipulate their experience to create a more comfortable or readerly poem.  Of course, that’s its downfall, isn’t it?


About this entry