I have been experimenting with poetry (as opposed to writing experimental poetry) over the last weeks -- nothing planned, just following where my busy head led.

I have been noticing an interesting phenomenon about critiquing and appreciating 'experimental poetry'.
 
I have become quite clear (for myself) that it is not possible to develop an appreciation for 'contemporary linguistically innovative poetry' if you don't read any. This is to say, such poems viewed from a decontextualized place are not likely to be 'seen', understood or appreciated.

 AND such poetry is so far from standard, that many people will have never seen it (experimental poetry), or heard it, or read it --
let alone think to write it or critique it.

In light of this, I am thinking to throw up a couple of links to encourage exploration: Selby's list of Experimental Poetry and Art Magazines, Drunken Boat, the Fall 2007 issue, which features a v interesting article about Oulipo, Sound Poetry, and Jacket Magazine, experimental poetry article.

After reading the above (which is only the smallest smattering) I wonder:

• Is it useful to critique a form of writing that you have no familiarity/context with and quite possibly, no appreciation for?
  
• If you do offer up a critique, what will be the basis of merit?
  
• What criteria will such a poem be judged against?

I am thinking (for instance) of some of Gertrude Stein's work (linked to post with a G.Stein reading) or Maggie O'Sullivan (I'll post one of hers in a separate post). These poets are catalysts for poetic stretch. They invite us to think outside of the box, push our understanding of what is and is not 'a poem' - and naturally, what is a 'good' or 'not good' poem.

Both poets (as small, proud examples) have also been harshly critiqued for writing 'nonsense, garbage, NON poetry.

I certainly don't intend to write "contemporary linguistically innovative' poetry - but if I do ... I acknowledge such poems may find it harder to roost in the hearts and thoughts of readers.