If I remember rightly, Brendel likes Satie.
At 10:36 AM 10/25/2007, you wrote:
>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.
|