Politics is just one symptom of the human condition. There is much that is
beatific and base about ourselves that is not politics and this makes for
more interesting reading.
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Dean Brink
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2000 2:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Politics IN poetry
I would also like to say unilaterally that politics and poetry are as kin as
wine and a glass, but the history of aesthetics for poetry is one of
prissily, perhaps with gusto, rising above the occasion, so to speak -- to
deign to claim a superior apolitical spring of "inspiration," "meaning of
life universals" and fanning the flames of the 'imagination' with a glimpse
into the "Eastern" (with little knowledge of its use in context, nor
reflection on the history of the use of such imagery in the West,
exoticizing Asia and Asians, fueling curiosity as well as fear,
misunderstanding and racism). Poetry has had a way of skidding into
ethereality.
We can argue against it, but we can’t ignore this "traditional" bias against
politics. Exposing it in blanket opposition and denial of it as invalid
doesn’t address those who don’t want to talk about it or find a place in
their hearts for it, the political (yuck, me decide/act, and in a poem? It
would tear the violin heart out of the bourgeois spirit.) Anyway, I’m glad
they’re there holding down the prissy fort, if only to write against them
and feel like I’m rising above them (as they undoubtedly do bouncing above
me).
It’s not really a question of poetry in politics or vice versa, but of the
recognition of the twain – and this is what upsets so many poets and readers
(just give me the sugar, don’t bother me with who shouldered it to the ships
[ode to Starbucks anyone?]).
==
All the discussion of poetry and politics the Dalai
Lama sucks posting seems to have initiated treats
politics as an OPTIONAL EXTRA for poets - it's like,
'should I include political comment in my work'.
I think that Qs about political comment - is it
possible to write a good sestina about Tony Blair, is
Mayakovsky more sensitive than Yevtushenko to the
needs of poetry etc etc are fundamentally RED
HERRINGS.
Arguing about whether poetry SHOULD be political is
like arguing whether art should be sociological - of
course it bloody well already is, itnever fell from
the sky! A better Q is: should art be looked at
sociologically, should the political commitments of
poems and poets, the political commitments underlying
a fair deal of aesthetic experience, be examined?
I would argue that every poem is political because
every poem is born out of a place in a set of social
relations, and therefore serves an interest(s) which
defines itself in terms of its place in those
relations. Hence a sensible Q might be: what place do
the 6th Dalai Lama's poems come from in Tibetan social
relations, what interests and conflicts are built into
their very existence, let alone their aesthetic
appeal? An obvious start to answering this Q is a
recognition of the fact that the guy is writing in a
language WHOSE VERY EXISTENCE is predicated on a
feudal set of social relations - it's a language which
only the upper classes can understand, it's a language
in which masters obscure their secrets from slaves...
Cheers
Scott
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|