Liz Kirby wrote:
>"I have a problem with the idea of the 'avant garde' - it kind of supposes
>that there is a 'garde' to be 'avent'. Is there really? To me it is more
>like myriad voices/relations to language. To identify as 'a-g' seems to be
>rather a self-conscious pose, a kind of 'look at me, I am clever and modern'
>//I like the subtitle of 'out of everywhere' which is 'linguistically
>innovative poetry'"
Alison Croggon wrote:
" As Frances Presley (another linguistically innovative
British poet) points out it has traditionally and is still a term
which has never been especially friendly to women. Mina Loy springs
to mind... It's partly that militaristic metaphor, and also, as
Ionesco points out, that it's nonsensical"
Well, you might think this strange, since I'm the one who put the question,
but I agree with both Liz and Alison. The term is almost uselessly
over-determined and really a historical label, and rather a pompous term.
And innovative groups have often been even worse than mainstream groups in
terms of sexism and male-bonding. I was, I guess, using the term in rather
a self-consciously naive way. Excellent points, I think.
Gabe
|