As for "major presence", I chose that phrase intuitively after considering
other diction, but my research shows that its dominant usage is within the
world of advertising. Perfectly appropriate for what I intended. After
ignoring it for years, once I discovered the "success" of the
construct "language poetry" in penetrating additional "markets", I would
facetiously congratulate certain "exemplars" whom I knew personally when LP
referenced recorded vinyl. "What an impressive academic PR campaign!
Shades of Madison Avenue!" However, I didn't need it, preferring to
evaluate each embodiment as their activity came to my attention. Some
interest me, some bore me, some repel me. Otherwise, I
invoked "Objectivism" as certain publicists and publishers of lp used to
do, with a broad brush. Finally, re "tarnished": would that not describe
the partial impact on the reputation and the earlier work of Dziga Vertov,
Paul de Man, and Ezra Pound which the later totalitarian allegiances of
those three figures (and their followers) enacted? I wouldn't associate
Louis Zukofsky, George Oppen, Charles Reznikoff, or Carl Rakosi with
totalitarianism despite whatever communist leanings may have existed, but
your stance towards "Language Poetry" needs refinement. John Yau and Ann
Lauterbach, citing two of your examples, were never lps. Perhaps it had
some impact on them, but I'm unaware of their accounts of such influence.
Barry Alpert
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 13:31:02 -0500, Frederick Pollack <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Barry Alpert" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 10:42 AM
>Subject: Re: Fw: Poems by others: John Yau, "Stuffing yourself into a
>blizzard"
>
>
>That's interesting. I would have never guessed. Isn't Objectivism
>tarnished for you by its major presence for language poetry?
>
>Barry Alpert
>
>
>Besides the redoubtable Perloff, the L school has many academic
>thesis-grinders who hitch their star to its wagon. Early langpo
theoretical
>statements (like the one that initiated those sillly equals signs, l=a=
>etc.) insisted also that there is no distinction between poems and
>theoretical writings. One aim of all this theorizing has been, as I said,
>to put themselves at the apex of a Modernist tradition they portray as
>monolithic, and as tending inexorably towards themselves. But there are
>many modernisms, any number of possible "traditions." There's also a
>paradox involved in claiming a *tradition of iconoclasm -- in a supposedly
>avant-garde movement saying that tradition justifies it. A phrase like
>"major presence," like the word "generative," is redolent of academic
>pigeonholing, not creative appropriation. Even if the historical
>inevitability of a style could be demonstrated, it wouldn't justify that
>style aesthetically, or preclude others, or compel another poet to accept
>it. The 20th-century American poet who sets, for me, the highest standard
>is Robinson Jeffers. I also like E. A. Robinson. Both (like me) wrote
>narrative poetry. I could say - as my friends at the now-defunct Story
Line
>Press did - that they comprise a modern narrative "tradition." But since
no
>academic cares about that tradition, it doesn't exist as such. I could
>claim it as a "presence" in my work, but wouldn't it be pompous to do so;
>instead Jeffers and E.A.R. are simply exemplars for me, influences. Along
>with the "Doric" grace of Reznikoff, the warmth of Rakosi, the stylistic
>Cubism and intense political consciousness of Oppen. Joe Duemer's implied
>point is also well taken: "Objectivism" exists because Harriet Monroe
wanted
>a label and Louis Zukofsky was glad to give her one. I think Oppen's work
>is important because it interests and stimulates me; Zukofsky's doesn't.
>Styles change, despite the efforts of poets to prove that theirs is not
>merely one style among others but historically necessary. And tastes
>change, despite the efforts of theorists to conceal taste with theory.
>=========================================================================
|