Wat is “Nano-poësie”?
Wednesday, January 6th, 2010
Gilad Meiri
Op Poetry International se webblad is hul Nuusbrief vir Januarie onlangs geplaas en vandeesmaand word daar gefokus op die Israeliese en Japannese digkunste. Maar dit is die gedeelte oor die Israeliese digkuns wat my aandag trek; veral ‘n artikel met die titel “The importance of small things – An introduction to Nano-poetics” deur Gilad Meiri.
Na ‘n lang inleiding oor die reduksiewaarde van poësie, kom hy uiteindelik by sy definisie van wat onder Nano-poëtika verstaan word, uit: “The movement from major to minor is generally characterised by preferences for what is concrete, human, mundane, ephemeral, personal, humorous, unusual, ironic and restrained – over what is abstract, divine, sacred, unchanging, collective, serious, familiar, bathetic and ornate […] Nano-poetics borrows two relevant qualities of nano-technology for use in the interpretation of poetry: miniaturisation and duplication. The first borrowing is the nano itself, a tiny thing that stands on its own. The use of size – poetry’s approach to the small – as an interpretive strategy is a natural extension of an essential feature of poetry itself, for a poem is the smallest, densest unit of aesthetic information there is.”
Hiervolgens staan die inhoud en vorm van die vers voorop en nié noodwendig die lengte van die vers nie. In wese gaan dit oor “the use of ordinary language, and apparently ordinary objects and situations, simple or marginal people and places, humor, nuance, superficiality, prosaicness and the like.” Daarteenoor behels die beginsel van reproduksie die volgende vir Meiri: “The second borrowing is duplication, which depends on miniaturisation. Without the miniature there can be no reproduction. Experience tells us that in order to recycle and duplicate poetry, it isn’t possible to copy the entire original, but rather only a part or parts [. . .] Poetic duplication is based on the breaking down of larger poetic structures into smaller ones which are then recycled in quotations, imitations, parodies, or intertextual references, such as the breaking down and reproducing of Bible verses by writers of liturgical verse into smaller aesthetic and informational units reworked in new contexts.”
Uiteraard herinner hierdie beskouing ‘n mens summier aan literêre reuse soos Wislawa Szymborska (met haar versamelbundel View with a grain of sand, 1995: Faber & Faber), Zbigniew Herbert en vele ander. Om die waarheid te sê: hierdie is myns insiens die mees geldende tendens wêreldwyd vandag met ‘n verskeidenheid terminologieë om dit te beskryf. Selfs die grootste gedeelte van ons eie poësie-produksie staan waarskynlik in die teken van hierdie poëtika; veral (waarskynlik) vanweë die sterk voorkeur aan “belydenispoësie” wat enkele dekades gelede nog gegeld het en daaruit voortvloeiend, die tendens van alledaagse, persoonlike gegewe binne groter verband met gepaardgaande “postmodernistiese” tendense soos dit tans geld.
Maar wat sou die teenpool hiervan wees? En – indien dit dan wel vry algemeen in bykans alle digkunste voorkom – is dit enigsins bruikbaar as literêre peilingsinstrument? Ek twyfel. Waarskynlik is hierdie maar net nog ‘n voorbeeld van blygemaakte belydenispoësie met ‘n postmodernistiese baadjie aan. Of verstaan ek die hele ding verkeerd?
Nietemin, ek plaas David Avidan se vers “Microfilms” onder aan vanoggend se Nuuswekker. Volgens Gilad Mieri is dit ‘n perfekte voorbeeld van wat bedoel word met “Nano-poësie”.
***
Op die webblad kan jy vanoggend Jan Pollet van De Contrabas se Nuusbrief vir Desember lees. Dit is sommer propvol nuus oor wat alles daar by hulle in die ander halfrond aan’t gebeure is. Dan verras Ilse van Staden ons met ‘n pragtige besinning oor rustigheid terwyl Philip de Vos hom weer met tipiese De Vos-humor verlekker aan boektitels.
Lekker lees en bly tog vandag uit die pad van klein deeltjies wat bots.
Mooi bly.
LE
MICROFILMS
Everything’s miniature, like microfilm.
And at the hour of need – enlarged.
It could have worked for us too.
The world is filled with creatures which are too large
and not always useful and not always necessary.
What’s so bad about miniaturising people and their belongings
and enlarging them at the hour of our need.
Keep them in mind big, taking up space.
Keep them in mind jumping toward the basket.
Keep them in mind, their equipment and objects.
But keep them in mind small, until the proper time.
We haven’t got the mental power
to shrink and at the same time believe
that we’ll grow at the hour of need.
We’re afraid we won’t return from the journey
toward miniaturisation.
We want to maintain our territoriality
to use and as a special option.
And so there’s no mini-future for humankind,
no micro-future for humankind, which doubts.
People don’t have the rare prowess
to contract and attack when the time comes.
(c) David Avidan (Vertaling deur Lisa Katz)
