A very difficult but interesting subject - one that endlessly moves. As
Philip's email came in I was reading of the argument between Herbert Read
and E.L.T. Mesens in 1945. Read, best known perhaps for his 1941 pamphlet
'To hell with Culture,' turned on the Surrealists by 1945. He writes of Art,
in relation to the cracking Surrealist movement, of requiring "the force of
tradition (which) comes from its unity, its inner coherence." He was having
a pop at the fragmentated individualism of the Surrealists and their
antagonistic diversity between themselves and their work.

Mesens replied in 1945: "to force, in art, at this present time, the advent
of a collective style can only be the accomplishment of one or several
totalitarian states..."
Adding, echoing back to Read's own pamphlet: "to hell with style, long live
invention."

In a sense, both were in pursuit of a sort of 'unity,' intra and inter -
even a 'collectivity' - but Mesen's afterword hit hard: "Cubism attempted to
be a STYLE..." < his caps > But concluded that this had been due to "a LUCKY
misunderstanding."

Obviously, in many art forms, collectivity is the means of working - in
theatre, in music. Yet, very usually, there is a happy/unhappy
transaction/friction within the 'collective.' For me, historically, Brecht's
epic theatre was an achievement in collective working - yet Brecht had to be
a bit of a bully to achieve his working method. Some Marxists (who became
post-Marxists) wrote of Brecht's method as if it was entirely the pursuit of
objectivity - so it would be 'truthful' in its collective unity. Yet,
Brecht's dramas were/are all about choices (from stage to audience).

Ultimately agit-prop art cannot allow those choices - of meaning, learning,
pull and push - for the discussion/argument/discourse is over before it has
begun.

For me, this in no way negates political art, just the singularity and
indeed "righteousness" of agit-prop. I think it was entirely right to form
'poets against the war.' My total support for such an enterprise. However,
the substitution of the Movement by Art or vice versa is a real problem. A
local group, 'Theatre of War,' who built the golden Bush toppled in
Trafalgar Square, create big street puppets for street theatre against the
war/occupation of Iraq. Their 'die-ins' are embarrassing because they impose
what is already known: their narratives elevate Punch & Judy to high art.
Worse, they're entirely humourless. They lecture without need for learning
or
engagement - with their audeince, among themselves.

I like - and pursue - the notion of 'invention' over 'style' in poetry. I'm
not even keen that the poet finds her/his own voice. Prior going to
University I remember an editor telling me my poetry was 'all invention' -
"you're running before you can walk." Ah, the force of tradition.

And I mostly disagree with Paul Foot - 'Red Shelley' - who has spoken and
written about the relationship between revolution and poetry, concluding
that building on a tradition of metre and its reworkings 'roots the
lightning bolt to the earth.' What is wrong with 'writing out of the air?'
Yes, art has to be 'considered in its own language first' - but then aren't
we again in danger of individualistic 'style?' What is style? One's own top
most plank on the scaffold, or what?

The real world is ever more broken open and yet imprisoned; languages
fracture - and influence or are built anew from below. Though displaced from
the real, aren't the languages of writing and art similarly broken and yet
imprisoned; fractured and built anew from below? I don't know but...

To hell with style, long live invention.

Rupert