Steven Zultanski
Biography
Steven Zultanski is the author of the chapbooks Homoem (Radical Readout, 2005), USA = NAZI (Nocturnal Editions, 2008) and Steve's Poem (Lettermachine, forthcoming). He edits President's Choice magazine, a Lil' Norton publication. His poetry has appeared in Antennae, FO(A)RM, The Physical Poets, Shiny, and elsewhere.
Poet's Note
Let’s throw out the idea that art can be accessible, or human. Forms of popular and unpopular art do not quickly make or impose meaning, nor do they reveal intention. For example, an 'N Sync song is written from an abstracted "point of view." Instead of having a consistent narrator / singer, phrases are used in such a way as to potentially apply to a wide variety of interpretations or imaginary situations, allowing the listener to fantastically enter into the listening experience AS the singer:
Baby dont misunderstand
(dont misunderstand)
What I'm trying to tell ya
In the corner of my mind (corner of my mind)
Baby it feels like we're running out of time
Let it go (go) if you want me girl let me know
I am down on my knees, I can't take it anymore ohhhhh...
What is this song about? A break up? A love affair? A love so strong that the lover is tortured to be momentarily apart? A love so stupid that the other lover's presence is confusing and painful? It doesn't matter— the song is about all and none of these things. Its power lies in its ability to be all of these things to multiple listeners. It seems to me that an Ashbery poem works in a very similar manner. In his writing, for example, the shifting, imprecise pronouns allow a variety of possible intimate, personal resonances and readings of any particular poem, inviting the reader to vicariously "write" the poem. This is not to argue that my poems are working in this same way, but that people don't turn to art for consistent meaning in the first place.
So, are poets and poetry readers sometimes far less sophisticated consumers than 'N Sync listeners? Think of that most annoying and ubiquitous comment with regards to experimental poetry: that it is either bad because it leaves out the "human" or it's good because even though it's formally experimental there's still something "human" about it. WTF? Are we that backwards as readers that our primary concern is with makings sure that the art we consume reproduces certain forms of sentimental or "personal" expression which can then be identified as "authentic" "human" "emotion" and which then allows us to "relate" to the "author"?
Even teenagers know that Justin Timberlake isn't human, he's a celebrity. What he does is acting and posing and there is nothing real about it. It's a fantasy that his audience believes in the fantasy—everyone knows he's a two-dimensional character. But poets want other poets to be somehow three-dimensional minor celebrities! As if we were somehow better and more true than Justin Timberlake! Of course, the poetry may be better and more true than the 'N Sync song, but the poet is certainly not better or more true than Justin Timberlake, and the reader can't "relate" to the poet any more than the teenager can "relate" to the celebrity. The only difference, as I've said, is that the teenager already knows this is impossible. I hate the human.
As Rob Zombie says, it's "more human than human" to make art (poetry, in this case) that reframes the inhuman structures on which the "human" is built. Also, I dig through ditches and burn through witches in my Dragula.
Sample Poem
"110%" (pdf)
External Links
Ron Silliman on President's Choice