Hi Tim, Dave and all,
of course I'm using shorthand for much muckier thinking. I'm not sure
that it is exactly management speak but am capable of bearing the
burden of that accusation as it plays into a more recent thread about
the economics of poetry under the thread 'our financial states' to wit
i was wanting to say - learn how to talk the talk that gets the money
and don't keep saying you don't understand how the funding system works
. . . Perhaps what it sounds more like when i plunge into such
abbreviation is recuperation into pedagogy. The talk here has been
about a lack of avant-gardes who can be identified as have a platform
of practices which others *might take as a lead. All i was attempting
to do was to identify one. Whether, or not, one then goes off and has a
serious look at some of those poets and finds those common grounds to
be more or less true (and it will remain contestable - that's what
generates discourse and resistance to the introduction of certain
discourses) is surely more interesting. I would hazard, Tim, that you
find some of this work so interesting because of their engagement with
such commons and the diverse ways that such engagements place pressure
onto the productions and circulations of their writing. No there's
another thicket of terms for you.
love and love
cris
On Dec 1, 2004, at 6:23 AM, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> cris:
> >common ground between them remains
>
> - an exploration of the performances of poetry both on and off the
> page - often between them or occasions of the one becoming the othe
>
> - an exploration of the book and 'bookness'
>
> - a proclivity for interdisciplinarity of reference and influence
>
> - a tendency towards collaborative practice
>
> - the uses and abuses of lo-tec in many aspects of the performances
> of poetry<
>
> Why, why why do i have trouble with what cris says? Is it just down to
> the fact that, as Dave says, it sounds like "managementspeak" and
> "fudgespeak"? The way it sounds could be simply down to the fact that
> cris is using shorthand, trying to give a lot of info in a short
> space, yet at the same time this way of speaking, like managers, seems
> to carry with it certain markers of attitude towards what is being
> managed.
>
> I cannot put my finger on it, but I know that with the majority of
> the poets he lists the reasons i am so interested in, and enjoy, their
> work, has got very little to do with his particular list of common
> grounds. The common grounds seem mechanical, peripheral, or
> superficial to the rich things going on in their work - there are a
> few exceptions in the names where this is not the case, i admit. I am
> not putting down the importance of his 'common grounds', just saying
> that such things are not what draws me to them. Maybe an instrumental
> case could be made for saying that their work is what it is as a
> result of some of the mentioned common practises, but if so, why is it
> that cris concentrates so much on the mechanics, as though they were
> what mattered.
>
> Tim A.
>
|