Hi Alison! sorry not to acknowledge your reply sooner, and not to have
time for greater depth either. Re the Cayley presentation, your straight
questions plunge me into that foggy dawn in which I can believe
impossible things ... 'Utter language' was my invention; I think it
however it is disembodiment, in a way; but I suspect there is a defence
(if one wanted) to do with what goes on somewhere interior. The only
point of the body (artistically) is its subtle responsiveness, right?
which makes such a contribution to our thoughts about things. It's the
work done with the materia of perception which matters, that does not
happen at the skin but in a place that can't even be surgically located.
That's probably not true, in all sorts of ways ... I know you'll
disagree: I'll fly that kite anyway! and further: bodily life is
constructed overwhelmingly socially; few physical behaviours are purely
reflexive (crude example of a fallen child checking its mother's face
before experiencing the pain it sees expected there).
Re reading, I completely agree with your formulation. One is most
grateful to people with the courage to expose their meaning-production
in process, rather than only its ripened fruits, even though the account
may be inevitably slightly tortured. John Hall had an article in a
recent Gig (magazine), where he gave a blow-by-blow first readings of
several short poems, based on a Birkbeck TALK given a year or two ago
which I found of tremendous value.
I would try to give an account of the other types of presentations at
the conference: those in the form of or on the subject of installation,
performance etc., since only Tilla has said anything about these here,
but not sure when I'll have time ...
excuse this scrappy message --
elizabeth
-----Original Message-----
From: Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 13 May 2004 12:22
Subject: Re: Birkbeck conference
>Dear Elizabeth
>
>Sounds like you needed those plain chocolate digestives. Thanks so
much for
>that report; it makes me wish I had been there. I especially like the
idea
>of poetry as stubbornly persisting dialect, although here it might make
more
>sense to think of poetry as vernacular, since dialect barely exists.
And
>did Cayley's "materiality of language" have anything to do with
embodiment,
>ie, is "utter language" a thing of dis-embodiment, or purer embodiment?
I
>find it extremely difficult (a personal limitation, I don't doubt) to
>abstract language, even written language, from the body, I am wondering
if
>the technology heads back or away from the body. Not sure about the
>reconfiguring of time: as films can, or even static visual arts? But
then,
>that assertion depends on what you mean by time.
>
>In terms of the reader/writer/intention question, might it be fruitful
to
>think of a work as something which provides a structured opportunity to
>imagine/create meaning?
>
>Best
>
>A
>
>Alison Croggon
>
>Editor, Masthead
>http://www.masthead.net.au
>
>Home page
>http://www.alisoncroggon.com
>
>Blog
>http://alisoncroggon.blogspot.com
>
>
|