Auden was wrong there.
This was the argument between Plato and Aristotle. Plato insisted that
poetry should have a moral (which includes political) purpose. But
Aristotle's counter arguement has nothing to do with "art for art's sake,"
the idea that the proper function of art is not to "make something happen"
but merely to give pleasure. The message of the Poetics, I think, is that
what poetry makes happen is that it changes the sort of person you are, so
you become a person better able to formulate and follow moral laws -- an
effect more fundamental than just persuading people to obey the moral rules
someone else wants them to follow. It's sort of like saying that poets
really make the laws, even if no one realizes they do.
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:22:19 -0600, Douglas Barbour
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Sure, this is a great poem, but remember that Auden also wrote:
>
>'For poetry makes nothing happen.'
>
>Art may survive, but does it really change the way people behave?
>
>Or if it does so, does it do so so slowly that it can't have the kind
>of effect on any immediate situation that a general's or a president's
>order can...
>
|