I agree with you completely.
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:03:25 -0700, Jim Andrews <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>there's a wonderful piece by kate armstrong that consists of lines that
>begin with "because". explanations. but it doesn't contain the
questions.
>one of the lines is "because art attracts pretenders".
>
>the great pretenders. and the not so great pretenders. and the frauds.
and
>so on.
>
>who is who? art does much for/with/through the veil of maya. for all
the
>difficulty of that, i don't see how it could be any other way and art
retain
>its vitality. because that very uncertainty is necessary for the vitality
of
>art. for its capacity to be freshly perceived. and to be both ultra real
and
>yet as flimsy as all pretence.
>
>universities of course have special difficulties with that uncertainty
>because they're supposed to know.
>
>but they don't, concerning contemporary art, any more than you or i do.
>
>it is well to remember that there are basically two types of personal
power.
>that which is bestowed upon you by others, and your own. poetry
issues from
>your own and your committment to what you conceive as poetry. and
all the
>rest is so mayaed. the universities and x cannot plumb it or affect it.
and
>will only know.
>
>each of us is the ultimate arbiter of poetry and there are no ultimate
>arbiters. certainly not the universities. now or later. if there were, they
>would be arbiters of things past.
>
>something like that...
>
>ja
>http://vispo.com
|