Now that's an interesting response, Hal. I thought when I read Kasper's post
that we wouldn't expect to make such comments about music or the visual
arts. These arts can have political implications, sure, but not
unambiguously. We wouldn't write a political manifesto for full orchestra in
E flat major. It all comes down to the fact that we have to use words for
both poetry and politics. And for talking to our children. And for making
love.
joanna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Halvard Johnson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: poem
> I, for one, don't think poetry ought to say anything.
> "If you want a message, go to Western Union," as
> some Hollywood mogul (Louis Mayer?) once said.
> Poetry, I think, should aim for the same sort of
> non-discursive quality that music has. Poems, of
> course, may seem to "say something," but messages
> are way secondary to everything else that poetry is
> and can do. (And I won't begin to get into that.)
>
> Hal
>
> "A rose by any other name is a rose by any other
> name is a rose by any other name is a rose by any
> other name."
> --Gertrude Shakespeare
> (oft. attrib. to Wm. Stein)
>
> Halvard Johnson
> ================
> [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
> http://home.earthlink.net/~halvard
> http://entropyandme.blogspot.com
> http://imageswithoutwords.blogspot.com
> http://www.hamiltonstone.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2007, at 10:33 AM, kasper salonen wrote:
>
>> I'm confused; maybe I used the word 'political' incorrectly. but I
>> sort of take affront to the notion that I'd write poetry without
>> trying to say anything. when I think politics & poetry, I think
>> 'political poetry' outright, that is, focalised social commentary. but
>> when I think about it, there's really no way of avoiding social
>> commentary in poetry; & I actually like that. it means an agenda
>> creates/reveals itself; I do have an agenda, though a modest one, but
>> I've never thought of it as politics. fucking semantics.
>>
>> also, 'writing something pretty' (= writing something frivolous) seems
>> a rather difficult thing to accomplish, if commentary exists in some
>> form no matter what. I've seen 'great' atempts on the internet
>> though..
>> in fact, when I write I think more of the 'pretty words' than what is
>> being said: because I've mostly decided the latter before I start
>> writing. the pretty words are guided BY what I want to say, but all or
>> most of my conscious focus is on the words alone. commentary (or
>> "politics") may be an automatic system.
>>
>> KS
>>
>> On 16/03/07, Heather Taylor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> I think we're too cozy in our westernized society. We can basically
>>> write
>>> what we want without worry of losing anything important (except maybe
>>> pride
>>> :) But when there are writers out there that write under threat of
>>> death and
>>> ostrization from their families/ communities, how important is what we
>>> are
>>> writing if our words don't mean anything.
>>>
>>> I wonder - if you're not saying something with a poem (and I'm not
>>> meaning
>>> something political, but anything) - why are you writing it? Just to
>>> make
>>> pretty / clever words on a piece of paper?
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and
>>> poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of kasper salonen
>>> Sent: 15 March 2007 22:00
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: poem
>>>
>>> well I hate to disappoint you, but I never feel natural entertaining
>>> political thoughts in my poetry. all the subtle metaphoric reference
>>> needed to make something like that not jump down collective throats is
>>> something I've never felt up to. poetry & politics have always been a
>>> cringe mix for me; maybe it's the fact that a political overtone
>>> negates many other dimensions in a poem, in a way: suddenly it's not
>>> just a poem, it's a statement & a stand & a speech & a polemic. I
>>> prefer to write poetry.
>>>
>>> KS
>>> >
>>>
|