On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 15:21 -0600, Douglas Barbour wrote:
> Those who take an interest in their
> work often form opposing camps (which itself suggests a kind of herd
> instinct), arguing for wildly different ways of locking them into the
> historical scheme.
This seems a leftover from the categories inherited from Aristotle and
Kant and the recent crisis in the universities connected to the
faculties.
The introduction of writing courses into the universities renamed
creative writing, which was taken from the art school style of teaching
writing as a technical teaching, where this style of teaching relies
basically on reading, just as painting relies on seeing paintings, is a
symptom of this crisis and also the inability for thought to rely on the
correct use of the categories.
The fact that we no longer think this way is becoming more obvious
looking back over the pass 20 years. At the end of the 80s my work was
considered gay porn bad form and opposed by a Les Murray model of
poetry. Today I could easily imagine being published in the same journal
with Les Murray. So over the past 20 years this idea of opposing camps
(categories) has broken down. Although I still get put into the GLBT
group, this is far more leaky, so to speak. GLBT has a sort of cross
genre force, genre being a social semiotic as social relation, here.
(see MAK Halliday and Foucault.) anyaways, just a comment...
There are surviving remnants, of course.
--
I have chronic fatigue syndrome so I may be delayed in my reply. Just to
let you know, that's all. Chris Jones.
Blog: http://abdevpoetics.blogspot.com/
|