Yes, I think Duncan's statement comes out from the way he sees poetry as a
techno-social field - and as such, he sort of beams in, looks around, sums
up, then beams out again...
E
>From: Geraldine Monk <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Geraldine Monk <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Critical survey by Andrew Duncan of UK poetry anthologies.
>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:18:07 +0100
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Edmund Hardy"
>
>Subject: Re: Critical survey by Andrew Duncan of UK poetry anthologies.
>
>
> > "We don't go into art to become somebody else; we go in to become
>everybody
> > else."
>
>
>Wrong. We don't 'go' into art at all. We are art. It's not a separate
>entity that we go in and out of - it's within us - we can go in and out of
>styles and disciplines and approaches but we can't go in and out of art -
>it just is - like the late Alan Clarke said of Mrs Thatcher 'You're not
>meant to like her she just is'. Or if you prefer a less tainted version
>Art is Us.
>
>So the rest of Duncan's statement is redundant. However since he started
>this platitudinous nonsense let me finish: we don't 'go' into art to
>become anyone but ourselves because to everyone else we are everybody else.
> It's so beautifully symbiotic and empathic. It's how we survive as a
>social group.
>
>The 'I' in poetry may be singular and personal but if it doesn't carry the
>plurality of recognition then it is doesn't carry at all - a bunch of mad
>relatives living in the attic has nothing to do with it.
>
>G.
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Win tickets to the sold out Live Earth concert! http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
|