I can think of a few: surrealism, dadaism, oulipo, language, off the top of
my head. Which is not to say that the aims or means to them were dictated
by a sense of involvement in the movement--that does indeed seem to just
happen more often than not. But Breton declared surrealism an entity and
acted as gatekeeper, for instamnce, and Language was defined by the
eponymous magazine.
To my mind these are more advertizing ploys than anything else, the
dissimilarities among members often being greater than their similarities.
What does seem to happen is an agreement not about what one does but about
the terms in which to discuss it or to allow it to be discussed by others.
Mark
At 11:16 AM 2/8/2005, Lawrence Upton wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Edmund Hardy <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: 08 February 2005 15:56
>Subject: Re: Academic verse
>
>
> >I can see how if people consciously set up a group or movement
>
>does one do that? some maybe; but usually they just happen; or you think you
>are doing something youve thought of and you find it's in the air, or in
>another genre
>
>but how many set up a movement?
>
> >can't there be a constructive non-coinage? - which is not a loss of
>nerve? -
>
>i think it would be the opposite of loss of nerve
>
> >I'm not sure about 'innovation' as
> >being that broad a useful term altho I do think it is a good one.
>
>ever since i realised how much labour lite and co are into innovation i have
>felt more confident in my doubt of it
>
>i like rivers
>
>L
|