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
> >
|