Yes, I agree, but not so much on the "utilitarian" aspect, which seems
a given of poetry (i.e., it _refuses_ that), as on the "bargepoles," to
revert to Paul's term but that Pseu is also addressing. Civilizations
are by definition community (and community-value) enforcing and
reinforcing constructs, whether the given community is a club (of
which poetryetc is one sort), a city(-state), a hemisphere, or a world,
and a world/community that cannot accommodate those who don't "belong"
probably could not accommodate poets/poetry either if it even noticed
them, of course (as I take Alison's point to be).
Candice
At 07:12 AM 7/24/00 +1000, you wrote:
>Pseudo-Susanna has (I think) made some interesting points. I have some
>sympathy with the idea that poetry is not utilitarian - that if it for
>something, it is not not for the "good" of society. (This doesn't
>exclude it from the world of ethics, but in alignment with society it
>might involve poetry being of the devil's party, or more complex refusals
>and reversals.)
>
>As Simone de Beavoir said, heaven save us from well meaning people.
>
>There is the tradition of writer/artist as a point of reference outside a
>community. I think it's an idea that still has some life in it, pomo
>notwithstanding... The world of consensus ends up producing advertising -
>look at the (old) New British Art. Perhaps we should be grateful Saatchi
>is not in the least interested in poems.
>
>Cheers
>
>Alison
>
>
>>Such concepts apply only
>>marginally to
>>the reasons which are behind creation. To recall Chomski, as you did, one
>>might say that poetry
>>can indeed embody both the I-language and the E-language,
>>can indeed draw inspiration from the mind-mechanisms as much as from social
>>contexts
>>but, I say, cannot be asked to participate in a formal
>>justification-explanation of civilization.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|