Yes, I think Sontag's "Camp Notes" make all kinds of sense (now) when revisiting
Ashberry and O'Hara's strategies when building gestures within a poem.
It's been awhile since I revisited her essay. Course my curator friends is not
shy about reminding folks that Sontag was dead wrong on Diane Arbus, and her
essay buried Arbus' brilliance for a generation.
Stephen
________________________________
From: Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 2:39:38 PM
Subject: Re: re-membering moment
What one remembers of Note on Camp (& much else by Sontag) is both its own style
(beauty) & the fact that most of the theorizing that followed in her footsteps
was only lengthy footnotes to what she had already implied (or outright said).
Why I read so little theory now but go back to writers like her & the equally
brilliant in his own way Guy Davenport.
Doug
On 2011-02-19, at 11:49 PM, Stephen Vincent wrote:
> Chris, I do know how "camp" plays out as a current literary theory. I was
> referring to Susan Songtag's "Notes On Camp", first published in 1964. I think
>
> there were a total of 54 or so 'notes.' And it is interesting to me how they
> resonate in the work of Ashberry and O'Hara
Douglas Barbour
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
http://eclecticruckus.wordpress.com/
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
Language has unmistakably made plain that memory is not an instrument for
exploring the past but its theater. It is the medium of past experience, just as
the earth is the medium in which dead cities lie buried.
Walter Benjamin
|