In this digitized age, we witness a transnational interest in the ‘aesthetics of imperfection’ – aesthetic gestures that foreground shortcomings, mistakes, and flaws. Blockbusters shot with cheap cameras, trash fashion, consciously blurry photos, glitch music: for the cultural producers and consumers of these and other aesthetic practices, the unpolished object is not a taboo but rather an asset or a hallmark of sincerity, authenticity, and other positive values. With the help of existing scholarship, in this article, I will study and compare the writings of three Russian poets/artists: Vera Khlebnikova, Vera Pavlova, and Linor Goralik. Each uses conceptual as well as formal, grammatical, and/or stylistic imperfections as an aesthetic device. The aim of my analysis is to juxtapose and historically contextualize the social anxieties that inform these and other present-day creative practices that foreground the imperfect.

This volume brings together contributions addressing the intersections of political poetry, performativity, and the internet. The essays are based on presentations given at workshops and conferences organized by the DFG Centre for Advanced Studies “Russian-Language Poetry in Transition: Poetic Forms of Dealing with Boundaries of Genre, Language, Culture and Society between Europe, Asia and America” (2017-2023). The conferences took place in 2018-2019, at a time when neither the coronavirus pandemic nor Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine were foreseeable, and the contributions have not been updated in light of these catastrophes. The articles presented here deal with recent poetry and focus on the connection between politics, performativity, and the internet in multiple literatures and intercultural relations. Although the majority of these texts belong to the Russophone world, poetry from Serbia, Latvia, and China is also considered. The contributors demonstrate, on the one hand, how newer poetry softens genre distinctions and formally tends towards multimedia hybridization and, on the other, how it transcends or dissolves linguistic, cultural, and social boundaries. Dr. Ekaterina Friedrichs and Ms. Lena Rosalin Schwarz were involved in preparing this publication for printing. We would like to thank them both for their careful review and wonderful cooperation.

The essay compares Inger Christensen’s (1935-2009) poetry and poetics with the work of the Swedish writer Birgitta Trotzig (1929-2011). It tests the potential of comparison by asking what happens if we compare what might be the two most prominent women writers of Nordic post-war modernism, two writers whose paths have crossed over the years. The first half of the paper traces a shared constellation of motifs (eye/butterfly/death) within two books of poetry, Trotzig’s “Anima” (1982) and Christensen’s “Sommerfugledalen” (1991). The initial comparison of motifs leads to a shared poetics. It offers a trotzig’ian version of Inger Christensen’s version of the condition of secrecy and fundamental parallels in their philosophy of language and the subject. But it also points to a major difference between the real as a mystic category in Trotzig and Inger Christensen’s more seamless, lucid, and dreamlike style. Advancing further into a stylistic comparison the linguistic and visionary abundancy of Trotzig’s “Anima”-poems reveals an overlooked quality in Christensen’s: That Christensen’s poems are also luxurious, albeit, typically, with moderation. The balancing of sense and sensibility appears by comparison to be a key trait in her poetry, highlighting its classical inclination. The paper demonstrates how comparison makes its subject visible by way of the other, and how comparison points out new nuances or flavors in the texts as it opens a conversation between two major women writers of Nordic modernism.

Departing from Roland Barthes’ association of text and textile, and feminist theory on weaving as text production, this article analyzes the textile qualities of Inger Christensen’s “Letter in April” (1979) and Amalie Smith’s “Thread Ripper” (2020). In “Letter in April”, Christensen establishes a connection between writing and spinning or weaving through their shared temporality of varied repetition. In “Thread Ripper” Smith alludes to Christensen and makes of the continuity between text and textile not only the main theme of the book, but also its structuring principle. Through a materialist conception of the text, regarding it as a woven fabric, the article focuses on the textual patterns of the two works (stylistic figures in Christensen, graphic composition in Smith). The connection from Christensen to Smith leads to a further connection to ecocritical conceptions of weaving as no less than a cosmological principle. On a concluding note, the article argues that weaving is not only connecting, but also disconnecting, cutting.

In order to shed light on the important function Inger Christensen had for the German poetry scene in the 1990s and 2000s, the article examines texts by Thomas Kling and Oswald Egger. The central argument is that both Kling and Egger drew on Christensen’s sophisticated nature-philosophical inspired poetics in “det”/“das” to break away from an experimental poetry that is primarily interested in questions of language and media theory. Both seem to be particularly fascinated by Christensen’s attempt to think of the relationship between language and the world in terms of a chiastic entanglement, which shows clear traces of Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception. But despite this similarity, they react very differently to the poetological considerations of the Danish poet. Both do not adopt Christensen’s reflections uncritically but attempt to utilize them for their own aesthetic purposes.