Robert, my apologies--I assumed you had read the essay.
I accept that theory had some use in exposing, as you say, ‘the assumptions underlying various kinds of judgment’ in the 70s, and I’m not against theory used as such. But I agree with Fieled, that poetry produced by writing practices that merely endorse a particular theoretical approach because it is accepted practice in those writing circles is bad for poetry because it just becomes another production line producing insipid and insignificant poetry. I’m sure you know many poets who write like this, so you will know what I’m talking about.
Yes, as you say, “non-theorised” poetry often has an unacknowledged theory behind it, although this could equally be said about any use of language to communicate.
Original Message:
I haven't read Fieled's essay and wasn't commenting on it: I was directing my observations to Tim. (Since Tim is on the list, he is also able to respond, if he wishes.) I am not sure that we can exclude the examples of Keats or Coleridge just because they were talented poets ...
My preference is for an an attempt to articulate the aesthetics, the philosophical assumptions with which one is working. Part of the importance of the engagement with 'theory' in the early 70s was that it sought to expose and explore the assumptions underlying various kinds of judgement. 'Non-theorised' poetry, in my experience, often has a theory: it doesn't articulate it because it assumes that it is 'natural'.
Robert
|