I think the thing that is irksome about the ascription of the label
'sentimental' is the confidence with which it is done. I have a similar
problem with the concept of kitsch. There are a few things that I like that
other people describe as 'kitsch', and I'm damned if I'm going to come up
with 'ironic' ways of liking them.
I'm thinking here of Alfred Brendel, who thus regards certain parts of the
classical piano repertoire. I don't know if he mentions Satie, but Satie is
a good example because his music is immersed in the local popular culture of
his day, though transformed by his touch. It's because I like Brendel so
much that I'm irked by this particular issue, because it makes me feel as
though I have to defend myself -- but against what? Why the hell shouldn't I
like Satie?
P
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Poetryetc: poetry and poetics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Janet Jackson
> Sent: 25 October 2007 07:10
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: sentimentality & 'classism' Re: New at Sharp Sand
>
> Sentimentality is difficult to define. But I know it when I see it. (I
think!)
> To me it means an expression of emotion that is very obvious. Where the
> reader is being told what to feel.
> It can also be emotional cliche, where, for example you say 'heart'
> because you think everyone knows what that means, when your writing
> might be more powerful if you found a more original word. IMO.
>
> As to 'classism'.
>
> We just had a very interesting poetry festival here where, to my mind, you
> could clearly see the two 'camps' of what I will call, for want of better
> words, highbrow vs lowbrow poetry.
>
> Highbrow being a style of poetics and presentation that is concerned
> with language & form ahead of content & communication.
>
> Lowbrow, where the content & communication with an audience is more
> important.
>
> I have a foot in both camps, trying to create work where both factors
> are in balance. Ken's work seems to have the same idea, as does most
> of the art I really like, including many of the poems we see on this list.
>
> Not all highbrow practitioners are stuffy or academic,
> and not all lowbrow practitioners are ranting performance poets,
> although those might be the images some of them unfortunately
> have of each other.
>
> Where people get lazy, there is sentimentality in the work of both camps.
> There are interesting and boring poems coming out of both, too.
>
> Janet
>
> > Ken, you just don't like that I'm a professor. That's your problem, not
> > mine. I quoted a workable standard definition of sentimentality. Why not
> > respond to that.
> >
> > jd
> >
> > On 10/24/07, Kenneth Wolman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > andrew burke wrote:
> > > > I define sentimentality as the over-abundant expression of
sentiment.
> > > And
> > > > sentiment as a mental feeling or emotion, often with connotations of
> > > > clingingness. Clear as mud, Ken?
> > > >
> > > > Andrew
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am blessedly past the point of nodding my head and pretending I know
> > > what's going on. I don't. Am I alone in sensing a kind of classism
> > > (bad pun) here?--those who work in the academic environment vs. (yes,
> > > versus) those who don't? The assumptions of shared languages seem to
> > > break along those lines. Mud is good for the complexion, they say,
but
> > > the dog don't hunt here.
|