In Andrew Duncan's Deleuzeian (Ha, I've been waiting to get that in)
take on the Brit poetry scenes he uses the term 'art poetry' somewhere
to indicate a minority grouping in the UK, while implying that
elsewhere what the brits see as 'art poetry' is almost the normal
state of poetry. (I hope I'm interpreting him right here - can't be
bothered trying to find it as the awkward so-in-so never indexes).
This chimes with my experience. I have always seen poetry as an art
form and my behaviour with regards to it reflects that. However, it
began to slowly dawn on me that most other poetry people here never
saw it like that, or at least not in the same way. They saw it as a
special tool with which to communicate something particular, and that
'particular' had to be 'worthy'.
This gets very complex so I'm going to take the dog out instead.
Tim A.
On 30 Aug 2009, at 17:21, Jeffrey Side wrote:
> The British have always tended to put worthiness
> before art for art’s sake. I think Mathew Arnold’s influence also
> important in Wordsworth’s being held in such esteem. Arnold’s ideas
> about art having to have some moral value and purpose is no doubt a
> factor.
|