I think I was thinking along the same lines, Fred, but I take your
point....
Or, rather, the matter, wasn't the subject but the actual stuff we
work with, as you also suggest.... which changes & suffers its own
losses over time too....
Doug
On 20-May-08, at 12:23 PM, Frederick Pollack wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Douglas Barbour" <[log in to unmask]
> >
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 10:15 AM
> Subject: Re: 3 poems
>
>
>> Ah, matter, is that what we run from in words? It sounds good
>> there, but then all the arguments in/of these poems do, Fred,
>> that's something you do well. But I'm not sure; just because we
>> dont muck in it in our art doesnt mean we dont engage it with our
>> eyes & transform it then....
>>
>> Or so I'd hope, but then, unlike your I, i didnt grow p with the
>> workings of....
>>
>> Doug
>
> I was thinking less of subject-matter than of the matter that is its
> medium. To me at least the words of Pound's "Station of the Metro"
> are vastly different from a painting one can imagine of the same
> image. Even the most carefully shielded paint and canvas will decay
> after a while, and their idea will depend on approximation,
> reproduction. Painting - again, for me - is poignant because it is
> *in time attacking time, whereas poetry both attacks and escapes.
>
Douglas Barbour
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
Latest books:
Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
Wednesdays'
http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
and this is 'life' and we owe at least this much
contemplation to our western fact: to Rise,
Decline, Fall, to futility and larks,
to the bright crustaceans of the oversky.
Phyllis Webb
|