Last week, Scott Heath, a member of the English department, spoke as part of the Georgetown Writers’ Series on performance poetry, slams and “the archive.” He also performed a number of poems. He explained a lot about the dynamics of slams in the US, and how there are distinct slam styles that vary from city to city. For instance: New York slam poetry has a different rhythm to Detroit slam. He’s been in DC for a few years, and is starting to catch on to the scene here.
I was interested to confirm that the saying that I’ve heard in Australia is definitely one that comes from the US slam scene—“He tried to win with poetry.” Page poetry of course isn’t likely to win the day: a slam is a performance. In showing us what it’s all about—and he did preface it with the disclaimer that he hadn’t slammed in a few years (though he previously participated in National teams)—Heath gave examples of the types of moves—almost a choreography, or perhaps something that reinvents the movements of Elizabethan oratorical handbooks—the slam poet makes, and a number of times he sang. Apparently singing (provided you can do it well) is always a crowd pleaser.Slams here—the big ones at least—sound like they’re a lot stricter on the rules. Slams I’ve been to in Melbourne felt like glorified open mike events, and as the judging was always based on audience response, it was always the poems about sex or football that won. (What can I say? Even in a poetry crowd, we’re pretty predictable!) In the US, the rules are enforced: a strict 3 minutes time limit. There are five judges picked from whoever in the audience volunteers, and all the slam poets can vet the judges, to ensure there are no friends or enemies on the panel. Also, the poetry is a lot more sophisticated than poetry I’ve heard at slams in Australia. It really is text that’s designed for performance, and it tackles a range of issues. Like in hip-hop, there are some amazing rhythms built into the language. I’m hoping I’ll get to go to a high level slam event sometime while I’m here.
Heath also talked about some collaborative work he’s doing with a musician in recording his poetry. What fascinated me was that he referred to this as “the archive”—perhaps because he simply didn’t have a clear idea of who the eventual audience for this work was going to be. It reminded me of conversations I used to have at the conservatorium with the other composers. Adrian Watkins, who was then recording and performing under the moniker of White Sirens, said that for him the recording was the end point his musical endeavour. Performance was great, but ultimately, what he wanted was this immutable product, the CD. At that time I was working quite a bit with electro-acoustic music, but what interested me the most was the intersection between a pre-meditated electronic backdrop and a live performer: and the experience of that as a live event. I have recordings of the performances, but the problem with recordings is that they flatten space. If I go back to music, space will be the major thing I want to explore. I’m hoping to ask Scott about this notion of the archive—I may report back.
On Saturday morning, Helen Hughes (a fellow Australian in DC—my own kind!) and I went to see an exhibition at the Kennedy Center: Japan! Culture and Hyper-Culture. It was fascinating: we saw three installations, as well as a few pieces in the foyer to the center.
The first installation we saw was Reiko Sudo’s work of giant suspended textile fish. (I have to admit, when I first saw them their shape reminded me of cannons) and, in a little room behind these, there was a projection of a fish pond on the ground. Some people walked through the fish pond—after all, it was only coloured light—but I was struck how so many people, myself included, skirted the edge of the pond. 
Next we saw Yayoi Kusama’s installations Day and Night: the first, Day, was a room painted yellow with black spots everywhere, and large, amorphous balloons suspended from the ceiling, and odd, blobby shapes emerging from the floor. The second, Night, was the reverse of this: black walls and yellow spots. It was interesting to see how much my mood changed between the two rooms. (I don’t think it was just the claustrophobia caused by the large number of people in the Night room.)
Between these two rooms was a work by Tadao Ando: Four Cubes to Contemplate Our Environment, consisting of glass cubes covered in words (Water, Rubbish, CO2, and Future?) filled with different things: empty plastic water bottles, aluminium cans crushed into blocks and stacked, a video projected on the ground and—emptiness. There was something wonderful in circling all these. 
Saturday night saw me at Politics and Prose bookshop, where Anne Enright, author of last year’s Booker Prize winner The Gathering, was speaking. It took me a while to find my way to the shop, as I hadn’t ventured that far up Connecticut before, but I’m glad I braved it. Enright read from her book for about half and hour and then answered a lot of questions. I think she’s still recovering from her newfound fame: her publishers initially published a run of 8000 copies of The Gathering. Since she won the Booker (which of course prompted a reprinting) the book has sold over 230,000 copies. It was a convivial event, and I have a copy of the book now, which I hope I will eventually get to read (oh… time) although not a lot stayed with me from the question time—one woman made the comment that when she read a book with such beautiful prose she always despaired of writing herself. Enright responded that writers don’t write these books, or not straight away. First they write 17 books, starting with a terrible one, and getting increasingly better. Something to hold onto. I got a feel for her humor (dark, Irish) and I look forward to reading her work. I have to admit that hearing prose read is usually a frustrating experience for me. I’m so used to the compactness of poetry, that when I hear prose I want to slash it and find the one page poem. Brutal.
Nonetheless, I love to sit down and read. I played hooky from my study on Friday night and spend the whole evening reading Curtis Sittenfeld’s second book—I had hoped to interview her on Tuesday, but it’s not happening. Despite the fact that the interview is not-to-be, I have to admit I enjoyed the book, although The Man of My Dreams has got to be the worst title on earth! There were a lot of things to like about the book—a lot of crispness, and a real feel for the way a character develops—but I did feel, in finishing, that it was a book that made a point.
