Body Language Isn't Universal

Medium: Charcoal, Marker, Watercolor, Red Editing Pen

This drawing was inspired by a conversation with one of my fellow Naropa classmates, Kaen Joyler. At the bottom of the sketch I wrote, "isn't it funny how even body language, once codified, isn't even universal. (Monday) 3/26/07"



Here is the original conversation thread:




kaen,

your post made me think of margins as a sense of control on the page. i'll get to my point (eventually). i can't remember if this was one of my thoughts, or something i'm misquoting from one of our readings as of recent, but it's this restriction of space that seems to correlate to the restriction of language, and i'm seeing language at this moment as such a restriction when/if we are limited by its potential by writing in only one. however, what's interesting is that alcalay's text was only in english. what do you think? have i made any sense?!




melanie-

are you thinking of silliman's chinese notebook [ e.g. #63, #64, esp #176 ]?

restriction is okay with me. a form of discipline. it's everywhere. the important thing, i guess, is to acknowledge the restriction, to have it serve the poem, incorporate it.

remember my korean poems from last year, justified on the right-hand margin? none of the korean poets i've met want to have anything to do with me. there could be many reasons for that.

but that's the difference between accepting and acknowledging restriction that correlates to a restriction of language. as our ideas of space change, so can our ideas of how language functions.

and your point about alcalay's text being only in english is well taken. he admits to only being able to read other languages. and this is certainly a point to focus on.

in that respect, i might start from the position that since his subject matter is not the "american" experience, his use of his native language, english, is an act of translation.

it's in his idea of monolingual consciousness, and the choice he makes to use english as his linguistic vehicle. this is acknowledging limitation, or restriction, not merely accepting it as de facto.

perhaps this is speaking more to Olson's idea of grammar that was taken up in the other thread. i mean, within the framework of SAE, how is it possible to referentially use english in a non-american context?

and this brings me to issues of ownership and possession, which i kind of want to set to the side, though i will share something that shows how "out of control" english truly is on the international stage.

this picture is of children's socks being sold on the streets of seoul. kristen, perhaps you'd like a couple pair for your daughter?

-kaen


Photo courtesy of Kaen Joyler




[from me to kaen]

i'll take 2 for size 7.5 shoe! really, kid's socks? is the meaning lost? dismissed? coopted? misunderstood? isn't funny how even body language, when it becomes codified, isn't universal.