What really gets to me is the idea current amongst what we might call
"democratic" poets (handy term, Dave, thanks!) that any attempt to learn
even the slightest degree of technique is bound per se to ruin the poetic
ideal. If one is at all involved with poetry at a "democratic" level, this
one comes up repeatedly, as does the one about not ever reading other poets'
work for fear of being influenced.
These points probably lurk somewhere near the root of my embarrassment at
the term "inspiration", which I'll go into verbal contortions to avoid.
best joanna
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: Blah
> There's truth in what you say, Maz. A (serious?) application of a
> comparable notion was Brian Eno's Portsmouth Sinfonia: as an artistic
> gesture, in a sense, it worked, in that (though obviously aided by Eno's
> name) it attracted attention, but the succcess of having people who
> couldn't
> play music playing it was, is, dependent on the existence of a corpus and
> tradition being played by people who can. It works as a joke but if
> everyone
> performed like that we'd all rapidly go crazy.
> Some of the early punk groups (in the UK) really couldn't play music (at
> first) and for a short time some of their productions succeded in
> expressing
> a particular attitude at a certain cultural moment.
> So as post-modern irony or genuine primitivism incompetence can be a
> working
> artistic strategy, but these are limited and dependent upon the existence
> of
> what they are not.
> Poetry is democratic in that anyone from any part of society +may+ be able
> to do it, it is not democratic in the sense that all and every can,
> automatically, do it. I notice you observe:
>
>> All people need in order to dignify themselves
>> with the title poet (or Poet) is the feeling that they are much sensitive
>> than the common run of people
>
> very pert. And buried in that notion, in that verb 'dignify', that noun
> 'title', is, paradoxically, a profoundly elitist notion of the Poet as a
> superior being, a sub-fusc Romantic ubermensch. Now there is almost no
> other
> walk of life to which such an attitude could be taken, imagine trains
> being
> driven by people who didn't know how to drive them, shoes being repaired
> likewise, locks fitted, food prepared, dentistry applied etc etc. Now at
> times these things happen, and people ('Poets' included) get very unhappy
> if
> they happen to receive such favours.
> But with poetry? - ah well, we don't take it seriously do we? it doesn't
> matter, does it?
> The only major occupation I know of where no prior skill, talent or
> application is required, only the fact of becoming noticed, is:
>
> politics.
>
> And look what happens there!
>
> (I'm using Maz's message as a tag to generally respond to the various
> messages, thanks to all, especially jon, Martin, Roger, Joanna, Joanna, if
> I
> tried to answer each point by point I'd be at the PC all day!)
>
> All the Best
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "grasshopper" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 1:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Blah
>
>
>> David,
>> What you've discovered is the new truth about democratic poetry today.
> What
>> is important is the attitude. All people need in order to dignify
> themselves
>> with the title poet (or Poet) is the feeling that they are much sensitive
>> than the common run of people, and therefore obviously have Something to
>> Say. They don't need to learn or practise any craft--they just have to
> feel
>> a need to express themselves. And once they are Poets, expressing
>> themselves, anything they write with linebreaks is Poetry, and it's the
> duty
>> of readers to read it and marvel.
>> In other words, it's the triumph of attitude over application.
>>
>> Regards, Maz
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 12:57 AM
>> Subject: Blah
>>
>>
>> > I've become interested lately, as apart from being excruciatingly
>> > aware,
>> of
>> > the laziness of poetry. Poetry, as an art, along with elements of
>> > visual
>> > arts, has become a last refuge of the bone-idle, at least, if you write
> a
>> > novel, or a play, you have to put your back into it, it takes work,
>> poetry,
>> > although, because of its extremely primitive basics, can be like a
>> > five-minute-fix. This is not to say the withering and murderous demands
>> that
>> > poetry as an art does exact, but there's kind of fuzzy notion arounmd
> that
>> > anyone can write poetry. No they can't, and what's more most poets most
>> > can't write it either (to order), or to acceptance. It comes when the
> gods
>> > say, and with an awful lot in the background support. This may sound
>> rather
>> > elitist, it is, it also is very democratic: anyone can do, but most
> can't.
>> >
>> > The worst thing of all is the proliferation of banality posing as
> poetry,
>> it
>> > killls the art.
>> >
>> > i get so tired of hearing people who are totally ignorant of the least
> bit
>> > of metrics (you have to know the rules in order to break them - that's
>> what
>> > I do) or the provenance of words droning on in my ear. a friend of mine
>> who
>> > is keen amateur singer, this just as a chorister in a provincial city's
>> > classical choir, has to do one full and one semi-rhearsal twice a week,
>> plus
>> > other bits of practice, twice a week plus, just to be in the
>> > background
>> in
>> > a performance. Most people I know who think they're poets look at you
>> > as
>> if
>> > the boat's gone out if you say 'catalexis' or 'caesura' or even
>> > 'enjambement' to them. Not to mention 'tonic' and sub-tonic' stress or
>> > ,
>> God
>> > help us, 'anacrusis'.
>> >
>> > One guy I know, who thinks he's a poet, told me recently he went on a
>> course
>> > where he learnt about technique - it was called 'iambic pentameter'.
>> >
>> > Lord have mercy.
>> >
>> > Best
>> >
>> > Dave
>> >
>
|
