Just chipping in. I don't enjoy offering critique for one moment, for
reasons most are familiar with. What I know though is that having to justify
soem of my reasons for liking or not liking a piece or an element of a piece
of writing has sharpened up my understanding of who/what I am as a poet
enormously. It's a skill worht developing - even if grudgingly.
Cheers,
Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Horwood" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 10:33 PM
Subject: Show and tell - Shah
Hello Shah,
Welcome to the debate. It was very interesting to read your
views. Some of your points I can agree with, others not. Thatīs just the way
it should be, of course, so letīs begin. Iīve taken some parts of your
message and then added my comment after each one.
Shah wrote:
I feel the job of discovering poetry and offering criticism belong
to two different categories. They are different; and it requires two
separate artists to accomplish the jobs with finesse and dignity. One is
a poet, the other a critic.
Mikeīs comment
First of all, what level of the activity are we talking about here? On this
list most active members both write poetry and critique othersī work and I
think that is acceptable, and very helpful to the individuals engaged in it.
If you mean at a professional level, I am still sceptical. Itīs true that
not every professional critic is a great poet, and vice versa, but many
poets have written `greatī criticism - Coleridge, Dr. Johnson, Shelley, DH
Lawrence. And professional critics have also published poetry - very many of
todayīs big names are actually academics - Douglas Dunn, Charles Tomlinson,
Craig Raine, Tom Paulin.
Shah wrote:
In fact all the three phases or stages have had produced most
wonderful artists and poets, and a few geniuses of high order.
Mikeīs comment:
Yes , I agree. Although the evaluations of one age may differ from those of
another.
Shah wrote:
Then why the change is desired, and insisted upon?
Mikeīs comment:
Because people - artists and audiences - get bored. Just how many `Mozartī
symphonies do we really want? If composers, no matter how brilliant they
were, had continued to compose in the style of Mozart and were still doing
so, it would not be very interesting.
Shah wrote:
Why does one
rebellious critic finds faults with prevalent literature, and how does
he foresee a paradigm shift in the exposition of art and creativity?
Mikeīs comment:
Iīm not sure that itīs the critics who bring about change. The artists do
that. Critics only record and analyse the process afterwards.
Shah wrote:
But now the poet finds new meaning therein, a meaning that
elevates humankind, both at individual and societal level, to new
heights of understanding and glory. The search to find new paradigms
will continue, till one reaches the highest truth, which for an artist
may be ever elusive Beauty.
Mikeīs comment:
This sounds as if you are arguing for continual progress, i.e. that the
cultural products and literary theories of one age are superior to earlier
ages. And also, perhaps, in terms of content or Truth. I cannot accept a
value judgement like this. There is no way to justify the judgement that
this cultural product is better than that or that this theory of poetry,
painting, Truth or whatever is more valid than another. That was partly the
point I was making when I said that the rule of `show, donīt tellī will
surely cease to be of such over-riding importance at some time. It may not
be in our lifetimes. But it will happen, if for no other reason than that
people will get bored with it.
Thanks for your thoughts, Shah. If you want to come back at me on any of
these points, fire away.
Best wishes, Mike
|
