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.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|