I'm
>not saying that artists should not be paid - far from it. Nor am I
>suggesting that poets should not work in universities.
Ok, and thanks for the clarification, Alison.
>> Well, this arguing among poets
>> about what to get rid of, whether we should get poetry booted from
>> universities,
>> or booted from funding by organizations because their reasons may be less
>> than pure, etc, seems to me somewhat ridiculous.
>
>Who's saying this?
Oh, I said it from a sort of overview of this thread, making logical extensions
from the various arguments presented here. Bernstein argues
against various venues that now exist for poets and poetry on the grounds that
they 'water it down', i.e. dilute its purity; Gioia has argued against various
venues that now exist for poets and poetry on the grounds that they are too
suffocatingly elitist, i.e. ivory towers of academe and MFA programs and
incomprehensible language poets. You seem to imply that deans and
universities by viewing poetry, as they do _everything_ as part of a liberal
education, devitalize it and create 'protective structures' that make Prynne
possible, i.e. hothouses that cultivate a zygotic plant that could not exist
elsewhere. If, by extension, we were to get rid of all of these things, there would
be little left, few venues for poets or poetry. If poetry is a feral vocation, and I'm
inclined to agree that it is, for whatever one does, whether milking goats or
grading English papers or teaching a poetry workshop or writing in other
modes, there is a certain ferality of being wild outside those particular modes,
for none of them are writing poetry itself, the actual doing and process itself,
but if it is such, I don't have a problem with there being any number of
environments in which it may disguise itself, find the necessities of survival. I
don't think the elimination of environments, however much they may be weeded
over, trashed, marked by the casualties of erroneous architecture, will grant
more strength or vitality to its feral life, but rather that the elimination of
various environments would make it more difficult for that feral life to survive.
I don't know, having felt enough feral in myself, for a number of reasons, I
wonder what feral animal wants to be spotted and recognized? the whole point
is not to be, if these environments were eliminated, these various
impurities which afflict the proper recognition of poetry, it's just the cat in the
headlights, extinction.
Best,
Rebecca
---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:53:41 +1100
>From: Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: down with the down with poetry crowd
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>On 21/1/05 5:00 PM, "Rebecca Seiferle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Well, I'd guess it depends on what 'an academic" is, which is a second cousin
>> to
>> that insult heard in some circles of being an 'intellectual'.
>
>I meant simply someone who taught English in a university. Not,
>incidentally, a writer, but someone for whom I hold a deal of respect.
>
>Someone like Prynne is inconceivable outside the protective structures of a
>university. On the other hand, the idea of career structures or other
>aspects of a "cultural industry" are highly problematic in the arts. I'm
>not saying that artists should not be paid - far from it. Nor am I
>suggesting that poets should not work in universities. I don't go in for
>the popular sport of academic bashing. But nevertheless, there is something
>feral about the vocation of poetry which ought to be respected and
>recognised; it is a bad mistake to think of poetry solely as an aspect of a
>liberal education.
>
>> Well, this arguing among poets
>> about what to get rid of, whether we should get poetry booted from
>> universities,
>> or booted from funding by organizations because their reasons may be less
>> than pure, etc, seems to me somewhat ridiculous.
>
>Who's saying this?
>
>Best
>
>A
>
>
>
>Alison Croggon
>
>Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
>Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
>Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|