Within Reid’s blog post titled “Goldsmith’s Assume No Readership”, he discovered that [Goldsmith] takes quite a while to get to the point, [however] the point [that] he makes offers a very sensible reason for why he chooses to simply move already existing things around.
I agree with Reid in the sense that sometimes Goldsmith’s work can seem very scattered; similarly to a person who was beating around the bush. When Goldsmith finally conveys the point that he was trying to portray, it makes me wonder how much of the piece was filler information. However I believe that one of Goldsmith’s main objectives is for the reader to simply grasp topic versus depth as he has self proclaimed that his work is “boring”.
In addition, the patchwork foundation causes me to question the validity of his work. Appropriation does not always work to recreate a better piece; it instead calls for a different perspective. This makes it quite difficult to find the value of Goldsmith’s own work within his essays. My view strongly coincides with my expectations of art: thorough, meaningful and something that is either filled with or evokes emotion. Goldsmith’s work does something different and is almost too simple to be valuable.
In a video embedded in Reid’s blog, the opening statements were as follow: “I’m Kenneth Goldsmith, a poet that lives in New York City. A city full of words. Poetry is all around us. We just need to reframe it and suddenly it becomes our own.”
…but is that truly how it works? I appreciate the form and stance that Goldsmith takes however I believe that a little more originality will go a long way!