it’s an interesting point. I’ve heard (again from Dave Hawkins) that the subtle thing about Easter Wings is that the wings aren’t perfect. So the poem’s shape actually runs counter in some way to its apparent meaning – or perhaps reinforces its idea of failing as the only true way of approaching the sacred. Either way, it is ambivalent. The relationship between the words and the shape is not linear. I suppose a poem about Barack Obama in the shape of someone else’s face might be more interesting…

But would you say that there is a limit to how far you can take this process? The examples you have given are relatively subtle in comparison to what could be potentially achieved when creating a piece of Technopaegnia. If I were to write a poem about Barack Obama, and produce the text in a range of sizes and tones in order to create the image of his face with the very words, would that be a step too far? Would that still be Technopaegnia?

Could this method of concrete poetry become over-the-top to the point of silliness?