Almost a decade after its creation, the experimental poetry movement Flarf—in which poets prowl the Internet using random word searches, e-mail the bizarre results to one another, then distill the newly found phrases into poems that are often as disturbing as they are hilarious—is showing signs of having cleared a spot among the ranks of legitimate art forms. Despite the group’s penchant for shocking content and outrageous titles (Sharon Mesmer’s “Annoying Diabetic Bitch,” for example, or Gary Sullivan’s “Grandmother’s Explosive Diarrhea”), many in the literary world are taking the poems seriously.
Via David Bircumshaw
Read more HERE
otherroom.org 
The answer is NO! Flarffff is a riduculosity, it’s not even new, just mechanised Dada. Who are these people in the ‘literary world’ who take it seriously? What about the term ‘post-avant’, that which comes after that which came before, can anyone take that seriously either? Ron Silliman is a second-rate academic who is only famous because he was one of the first blogging poets. He is the Brittany Spears of poetry, famous for being famous. By the way, calling Flarfffists ‘poets’ is like calling garbage collectors ‘sculptors’.
Britney. Congratulations for incorporating her into a discusssion about post-avant poetics, though. (TJ)
Not sure I agree with all you’re saying Paul. It is a sort of dada tactic but there should be nothing wrong in that. Dada should always live – it is the one of the great hopes and enlightenments. Not sure where the Silliman connection comes in but I’d have to say what Silliman’s got to say about the sentence is pretty interesting and pretty damn challenging if that’s what to be academic means.
PS I love flarf when it’s done interestingly. Some thoughts – As a symbolic movement it doesn’t interest me but it is extremely interesting in terms of method and style. I also have never seen flarfing as a single, isolated strategy – wouldn’t that be just found poetry but from the net? It just becomes a gimmick.
It’s much more interesting when the boundaries are blurred; between the ‘written’ (representation of represented speech) and the ‘copied’; when the outcomes are similar – I think that questions a lot about contemporary avant gardist writing – how much of it is bluff or fluff.
James
Paul,
For the record, I have a high school diploma and do not teach for a living. So I’m not an academic at all. What else did you get wrong?
Wow! I have been annoying Mr Silliman for three years and that is the first time has deigned to acknowledge my existence. I define you, Mr Silliman as an ‘academic’ because of the way you write, not because of any pieces of paper you may or may nor have. I am most interested in your opinion on all the other things I have ‘wrong’.