cris cheek writes :
>My curiosity has been rampant lately as to why those poets who retain as
>their ideal the autonomous crafted object still stand (or sit with the water
>and the vase of flowers under flickering neon strips in teak-lined cabins
>for that matter) up in public and read their works out load to an intimate
>or proximate audience. Why do they risk such a romantic authentication
>through authorial presence. Is it simply for the purposes of pressing
>consumer flesh and rubbing peer noses?
Though he may not have had me in mind as one among the many poets who care
for "the autonomous crafted object," my friend cris should know that i do,
i do. But to deliver sd object in a public reading is to enjoy another
aspect of the poem altogether. It may militate against an appreciation of
all that got crafted into the print version, sure---so if an
audience-member wants, s/he can look it up later, to see what left them
rolling in the aisles.
I dont mind the romantic authentication either, with that pressed flesh and all.
Simply to say (which includes "to type") Where's the beef? In your local
swimming baths, you can do laps, be part of the synchronized swim-team, or
play marco-polo with your kids. Everything is water if we look long enough.
Poetry includes every use any one ever proposed for it. I love what cris
does, even if he means one of its applications should destroy the notion of
the poem as autonomous object. But I dont think he will achieve that
goal...if it is a goal of his.
I have a hard time believing he wants that destruction. I think I am
hearing him too far out of the greater context of this discussion. But just
in case i'm not....
David
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|