Oh wow, I get back to a huge bunch of stuff, & there's the 'formalist'
discussion still hard at it. So, reading your note Stephen, I instantly
recalled a quotation I'm sure I've shared here before, but:
With regard to “Neo-Formalism”: ever since I studied linguistics when I
was a kid, it’s bothered me that the word “Formalist” has been used to
talk about exactly the opposite people from those whom I think of as
Formalists, to talk about people who would never question ideas of
form, but are only interested in what they call content, and are really
happy to use whatever Edward Arlington Robinson used in their
versification. What is called Formalism displays no interest in
Formalism at all. That’s what is meant by Formalism in talking about
European painters of the early twentieth century. If they had not been
Formalists they would have been doing Poussin.
George Bowering.
Always liked this, really. And I admit I tend just to use my ear,
always forgetting those names when I need them....
Doug
On 25-Aug-05, at 6:08 PM, Stephen Vincent wrote:
> Is it fair to consider everybody writing poetry on some level "a
> formalist."
> ??
> I begin to feel that's the ultimate embrace of Annie's argument.
> When is poetry not a "form"??
> Or a simple and/or elaborate "counter-form" ?
> Why is the proposition offered as "form" versus some - perhaps -
> demonic
> formless other. Or, is that implied other meant as "experimental" or
> "avant"
> writing?
Douglas Barbour
11655 - 72 Avenue NW
Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9
(780) 436 3320
Certain gardens are described as retreats when they are really attacks.
Ian Hamilton Finlay
|