That is a problem, and perhaps Bunting seemed to think it would be
self-evident to a 'good reader'. In a way he both answers and deflects
this by asserting that arts administrators are paid to judge (I
suspect they are not paid enough to do that and everything else they
are asked to do!), that, in Bunting's view, if I read him correctly,
is what they do: the are Judges. And to judge you must read widely and
in depth; in some sense be an investigative reader. This means that
you don't take the aggregate of all the bookchoices, prizes, and even
reviews and decide that that is what is good, but actually spend time
reading and thinking. Then you invest. It is still risky, and maybe
no-one likes risk, but administrators must be allowed to do that, so
Bunting would say (again - I am paraphrasing). This might make it even
more personal a task than it is now, though I suspect that there is a
lot of un-personality (of 'I've heard of him/her therefore they must
get notice') that goes into deciding who gets these prizes and choices
and even the courtesy of a review.
Richard
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Fatter History
Author: "Mills; Billy" <[log in to unmask]> at Internet
Date: 15/02/2000 16:36
The problem with Bunting's take on this has always been, Who decides who is
an artist and who isn't. And the answers bring us back to where we start.
Billy
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 4:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fatter History
Could I ask listmembers who were at the Poetry Society at this time
about Bunting's role, as President of the Society? I am fascinated by
the theme of patronage which is shot through his work, from the gilded
hands of the Emperor in Villon to the patronless and dishevelled 'poet
appointed' (darkly ironic phrase that) of Briggflatts. As President of
the Society during some of these crucial years, he may have been
involved in the kind of patronage he later posited in the speeches he
gave for Northern Arts a few years later (again, he was President there
- I recommend these pamphlets heartily - they go to the core of the
state patronage dilemma). Put briefly, and only a little
travestistically: just give artists the money. Go on, risk. See what
happens a long time later. Expect to write most of it off.
In one Northern Arts pamphlet he suggests he tried to persuade the
membership to wean itself off state subsidy altogether, but resigned
because the membership was unable to accept that. Does anyone have
anything to add to his version of events?
I should say I've just finished a piece on Bunting and patronage for a
book of essays on him that Jim McGonigal and I are editing for
publication a bit later on in the year: I'm almost hoping there's
nothing more to say! "You wish."
Richard
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: Fatter History</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The problem with Bunting's take on this has always been, Who
decides who is an artist and who isn't. And the answers bring us back to where
we start.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Billy</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: [log in to unmask] [<A
HREF="mailto:[log in to unmask]">mailto:[log in to unmask]</A>]</FON
T>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 4:31 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: [log in to unmask]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: Re: Fatter History</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2> Could I ask listmembers who were at the
Poetry Society at this time </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> about Bunting's role, as President of
the Society? I am fascinated by </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> the theme of patronage which is shot
through his work, from the gilded </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> hands of the Emperor in Villon to the
patronless and dishevelled 'poet </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> appointed' (darkly ironic phrase that)
of Briggflatts. As President of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> the Society during some of these
crucial years, he may have been </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> involved in the kind of patronage he
later posited in the speeches he </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> gave for Northern Arts a few years
later (again, he was President </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> there - I recommend these pamphlets
heartily - they go to the core of </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> the state patronage dilemma). Put
briefly, and only a little </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> travestistically: just give artists
the money. Go on, risk. See what </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> happens a long time later. Expect to
write most of it off.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> In one Northern Arts pamphlet he
suggests he tried to persuade the </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> membership to wean itself off state
subsidy altogether, but resigned </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> because the membership was unable to
accept that. Does anyone have </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> anything to add to his version of
events?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> I should say I've just finished a
piece on Bunting and patronage for a </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> book of essays on him that Jim
McGonigal and I are editing for </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> publication a bit later on in the
year: I'm almost hoping there's </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> nothing more to say! "You
wish."</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2> Richard</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
|
