-----Original Message-----
From: Kit Fryatt <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 03 February 2005 10:31
Subject: Re: So much rubbish everywhere
Do you think that current
>"academic" practice has copied the "avant crowd", who have now left the
>field to the professors (and if so where have they gone?) or (as I suspect)
>"academic" and "avant" practice are now so similar that we need better
>critical tools to find and describe the good stuff?
Here we go. Here we go. Terms not only undefined but put in quotes. Whose
words are being quoted and what are they trying to say?
I don't care who started it, and Ive just switched email databases so I
can't check, I for one son'r know what we are talking about when anyone
refers to _the "avant crowd"_, for instance
Now when I say anything like this one of the responses has often been
roughly _You want me to define everything as if I were writing a thesis and
that's not what I'm doing_
This time I get in first.
No, that's not what I want.
I do, however, want to have some grasp of what youre saying
The Vacuum alone knows what you mean by avant (garde? a clue? in
Hampshire?). Supposing you mean avant garde, that's so wide and so much in
the individual usage that it can mean almost anything
The idea that there is a crowd, as if it's a movement or a localised
phenomenon is not in it. and a crowd of what?
Some poets who are academics (presumably in a subject related to poetry or I
don't see the point even more) may have copied some people who would accept
that they are avant garde or in Hampshire or are confused whether or not
others would agree
OR
Some poets who are academics (presumably in a subject related to poetry or I
don't see the point even more) may have copied some people who some others
think are avant garde whether or not they would agree
But where does that get us?
And sometimes it's asserted _We all know who we mean_
No, we don't
I don't anyway. Not even with the hunny pot off my head. So, please tell me
>the good stuff is often easy
>to identify instinctively
Really? Any Darwinians here care to explain that one?
, but the vocabulary isn't always there to describe
>it in a rigorous way.
agreed
all best
yours in anticipation
L
|