As Ong acknowledges, “concrete poetry is [...] often merely gimmicky – a fact that makes it all the more necessary to explain the drive to produce it.” (Ong, 129)
McLuhan, while he appeared to have an eclectic approach to scholarship and never claimed to be a theorist, recognized the importance of, or our inability to extricate ourselves from meaning.
And Steve McCaffery says while exploring the relationship between ink and words, language and meaning, "as its material support, sound and ink are separable from the signifying process, but at the same time the process is unsupportable without it. In light of this one could consider language’s materiality as meaning’s heterological object, as that area inevitably involved within the semantic apparatus that meaning casts out and rejects." (McCaffrey, 203)
McLuhan, while he appeared to have an eclectic approach to scholarship and never claimed to be a theorist, recognized the importance of, or our inability to extricate ourselves from meaning.
And Steve McCaffery says while exploring the relationship between ink and words, language and meaning, "as its material support, sound and ink are separable from the signifying process, but at the same time the process is unsupportable without it. In light of this one could consider language’s materiality as meaning’s heterological object, as that area inevitably involved within the semantic apparatus that meaning casts out and rejects." (McCaffrey, 203)
