… 'those' who speak of 'roots' and 'trees' (poetry) and 'branches'(the
readers) are NOT anarchists, by definition : far from it. This is self-
deception. Those who speak of roots, of poetry of origins, of poetry of the
erotic are deeply rooted in a right wing understanding of the function of
art: these people believe in the irrationalism and its (socially dangerous)
drives. It is a kind of poetry that flutters itself with ideas such
as ‘magic’, ‘unique’, ‘erotic’, ‘primordial’, and so on….
All those who believe in the poetry of the natural and of the instinctual
are deeply conservative. One does not need to have studied to know it! It
is depressingly basic, this understanding of art.
The imagery of the tree and of the branches itself – this neo-Plotinian
illusion - is eloquent. The desire to be radical does not equate the fact
that one is effectively radical. The self-definition of being radical which
finds no confirmation whatsoever in what one writes is not sufficient to
make a radical of a conformist.
If one is a right wing writer (as DH Lawrence was) and one expresses all
the time conservative and reactionary thoughts about art, how can one hope
to confuse the specialist about one’s textual evidences?
Poetry of the instinctual is right wing poetry. Stop.
erminia
|