Talk:Flarf poetry

CSD nomination
This was nominated as CSD under patent nonsense. The definition of "patent nonsense" is quite precise: no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes.

Question: What is CSD?

A Google search for flarf gets 57,000 Google hits including a Village Voice article and the University of Buffalo. . I will put this on cleanup. Capitalistroadster 04:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What is Flarf?
I agree this article should be in the Wikipedia; I came to Wikipedia, thinking it would have a coherent discussion of a perhaps incoherent project. Alas, no. In particular, the "What is Flarf?" section is useless. This isn't written in way that someone with a passing interest in Flarf could understand. Frankly, I've got a B.A. in English and I've been reading about Flarf here and there, so I'm probably more likely to understand it than most Wikipedia readers, but it still makes little sense. Perhaps an overview of the history of Flarf in non-technical language would be a better approach of answering the question of "What is Flarf?"--McChris 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

... And perhaps the above has some worth, but consider that for many in the Art World the DAda Movement is a valid movement in the History of Art. Dada was anti-art. Non-Art. Nonsense. This is perhaps best emphasized by Fountain, a work in 1917 by Marcel Duchamp(b.1887 d.1968) which is nothing more than a signed urinal from a public restroom. It has been alleged that there was a philosophy behind Dada. A rejection of the world based on the horrors inflicted by society upon itself in the First World War. 70.244.62.83 04:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Dr. Ralph Wm Dunn
 * Some recent research with some colleagues of mine discussing this issue have lead me to believe that Flarf poetry, moreso than the other poetries, is a meme. Tyciol (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. From this article, I couldn't understand what exactly flarf is. 85.140.153.159 (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cross-Link?
Flarf and Spoetry seem to have similar roots... with spoetry being the younger of the two forms. Should the Flarf and Spoetry pages reference each other on Wikipedia? --Governorchavez 14:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

not CSD
I agree this is valid entry. If you know anything about flarf or the people involved, you would know it is legitimate. (for "patent nonsense," see the huge blogwars in academic poetry-land about who invented flarf--they all want credit. or Jim Behrle's flarf cartoons about academic poet turf-tussles...) Cindery 04:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to have anything to do with wikipedia. Or Flarf. My cartoons are not created using Flarf methods. There needs to be more discussion here of the use of racial epithets, rape imagery, etc. in Flarf Poetry.--Jim Behrle Yiffes 12:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled
After reading this article twice, I still don't have a clue about flarf. Please rewrite it in a coherent way, or add some examples. Thanks. 207.134.187.165 13:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples?
Seriously, this article is beyond rediculous. What are you even talking about? This article does not explain what flarf is, unless you already know what flarf is. "[Flarf is] any poetic composition that makes use of Google or other search engines", what, so if I look up the definition of a work using google, and then put it in a poem, that poem is flarf? How about some examples? Bilz0r (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Factual Error
My name (Henry Gould) should not be included among those poets listed who allegedly practiced flarf-like composition methods or participated in such. This is either a simple error or a slightly malicious joke. Hhgould (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

noise putty picture?
The article doesn't make it clear how the poetry and the toy/novelty product are related, if they are at all. I see from the edit history that the pic was removed and then restored... maybe the article could be edited to explain what it's doing here? (I mean, by someone who knows?) Darthmix (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed it again. I imagine that the toy might be the etymology for the poetry style, but pic should be omitted until that can be proven with an included source. Equinox ◑ 17:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)