For my fourth and final post, I'd like to say a few things.

First off, thanks to the seniors for sharing their perspectives and your outgoing words. To the rest - I hope to see you all in some space or another (dining halls, classes, facebook, etc.)

Secondly, I wanted to talk about slam poetry from a curious but incredibly ignorant outsider's opinion. I say ignorant in the sense that I am not informed and educated about the rules and regulation, the different styles of competition and general exposure to the art of slam poetry. (on a slight tangent - is all of this even important when trying to understand and appreciate slam poetry?)

However, maybe my perspective, unadulterated by the institution of slam poetry which I believe Justin Chin was critical of in his Slammed essay, can still be of significance. Just as I started to mention and what Ashley has said in her most recent post, the conventionality and predictable sound of a lot of slam poetry really sticks out. Sometimes, I cannot take the poet seriously in what they have to say because of their delivery. But in light of Justin Chin's article, I am slowly realizing where some of the blame can be attributed - the space of competitive slam poetry. In the process of judging poetry and performance and awarding "good" poetry with prizes, I believe, creates a drive for winning and succeeding. Coupled with the prize aspect, the winning and success slowly becomes molded around this supposed objective look at poetry. Here lies the tension between the subjective expression of what poetry is and the competitive objectivity that slam poetry relies on (in order to score and award poets).

Trying to shape and create within the space of competitive slam poetry is talent in and of itself. Without any regulations or stipulations, there could be hours-long pieces, highly offensive works or just simply, terrible poetry. Not to say that any of the three examples mentioned are not false in the spirit of poetry. I guess what I am trying to discover is what is at stake, what is gained and lost, through this process of commodifying art and making slam poetry more readily available for the most amount of people to hear and experience. The sharing of poetry and the space of competitve slam poetry creates an space itself to be analyzed and discussed. I believe, just as Professor Suh mentioned in class, that the new generation of slam poets will soon realize this and something is bound to change. I think Ashley is correct when saying that Chin's critique has broader implications than just on slam poetry. It takes this awkward period of trying share certain ideas to the public within some sort of outlined and confined space, some kind of process of commodification, in order to realize that certain ideas cannot be contained in certain spaces.

It is interesting how for most ideas and beliefs, boundaries are created and instilled in order to for people to relalize the limitations and tensions caused by these same boundaries. It is as if, in order to fully appreciate and understand a form of art, an idea, a perspective, it must be challenged rather than embraced. I guess to fully embrace something would require a more active understanding and appreciation for it, which would included challenging, limiting and attempts at commodification.

anyways, I'm pretty sure I spiralled off somewhere in the last two sentences but I really enjoyed the discussions and texts that we were all a part of this semester and I hope everyone has a great summer.

PEACE