There's an interesting article in the Chicago Review about Bunting as
President by Bill Griffiths, using the Mottram archive. It seems to me he
had some sensible things to say about placating the membership (thinking of
Peter Riley's complaints that the the committee of the society wasn't
blameless.)
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Price <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 4:30 PM
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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|