I'm puzzled by the notions of evil and culture here. On a grand scale of
let's say murder, Blair must score more points for killing Serbs, but I
imagine he reads poetry. I'm less comfortable with the culture of Bush than
with Ronnie and Reggie Kray. They're small fry. I think there is nothing
unusual in those who commit appalling acts of violence reading poetry,
appreciating painting or listening to music. In fact one might go so far as
to say most Western culture is built on violence. In fact I would go so far.
What puzzles me is how they are linked: culture/violence. Art has largely
been a feature of patronage. Resistance art before the 20th century seems
primarily to have been a feature of religious ideology. The 20th century
seemed to feature resistance as primarily a clash of political ideology and
perhaps abstention from political affiliation. What next, I wonder, given
the overwhelming success of capitalism and the absence of any real politics
(outside of the laughable bifurcation of most Western democracies)?
I think many poets would probably make good killers too. Indeed many were.
And these issues of killing, torturing, maiming and so on are so clearly
situated in a context of power and freedom, where two sides have drastically
different stories to tell. Any Christian poem is an act of aggression in
this way. In fact any poem that derives its impact from an ideological
programme must be an act of aggression. And if we proceed to review and
engage through such polarities I don't really know what we succeed in
divulging, other than the brutality of social engagement, and the frippery
of power and identity. No reason why mutilation and extermination should not
be subjects for poems either for that matter. I don't know what evil really
is. Though I know what I fear. I'm comfortable in the knowledge that my
aggressor may be reading poems as I am pummelled to death.
All hurriedly.
All best
C
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|