Hi Finnegan
On 21/1/05 12:15 PM, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> No, the people who said Yes were influenced by what they believed Poetry
> (capital P) meant to the culture and the community. How were they influenced?
> Richard Howard would have you believe they read a beautiful poem they didn't
> understand sitting by a fireplace one evening and a dove descended over their
> heads and whispered 'This is high art, support it'. What do you believe?
I think that's rather a bowdlerisation of the argument that Bernstein and
Palatella were making. Palatella, for example, isn't against poetry being
popular per se: he questions the usefulness, as Bernstein does, of the kinds
of popularisations of poetry that assure people that poems are not, after
all, poems and so can be approached without fear and loathing. He takes the
example of Emily Dickinson, who is certainly widely read, and claims that
her public popularity results at least in part from her stubborn adherence
to her interiority as a writer. He suggests that in these times of many
competing media, it would be far better to concentrate on the particular
experiences only poetry can offer, rather than saying it's just as much fun
as football. This makes sense to me. It's the same, I think, for all
minority arts: theatre that tries to compete with films is not only on a
hiding to nothing, but it is forgetting what it is that makes it unique. If
people are sold poetry as something that is merely an easy option or a
variation of stand up comedy, aren't they going to be taken back if they
encounter stuff that manifestly isn't that? (It's Jeremy Prynne, btw).
Oddly, poetry's status - the kind of thing that makes Deans fund it without
really being interested in the art, or publishers have it adorning their
lists to give them "class" - is not about its accessibility, but a
perception of its inaccessibility, a sense, the ghost I suppose of the
romantic ideal, that poetry and art somehow indicate that one is a better
human being and that civilisation is worth having and so should be paid its
dues. Such a hypothetical Dean would be most unlikely to fund a Pam Ayres,
because she wouldn't carry the same cultural resonance. This idea seems to
me as erroneous as the accessibility thing, and just as devitalising. And
these days it's diminishing returns anyway, as that status shrivels before
the bottom line.
Was it Bernstein who said that what matters is that poets make poetry that
matters? No matter, it's something I agree with. If poets want audiences,
then people have to be excited by the art, to feel that it is, in whatever
way, a part of their lives that they don't want to do without.
Best
A
Alison Croggon
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|