Bob said: 'It isn't perfectly unified, but I don't believe any poem need
be that; in fact, I hold that a perfectly unified work of art is a dead work
of art.'
Absolutely right, Mr Grumman. And well said.
Andrew
On 15 March 2011 07:18, Bob Grumman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 3/14/2011 4:55 PM, Barry Alpert wrote:
>
>> Ah, Bob, the golden oldies, "unity" and restricting interpretation to the
>> poem alone. I remember learning about those "restraints" ages ago, barely
>> post-Camelot, within a course entitled "Practical Criticism". Can't say
>> they ever surfaced when Mary Ellen Solt in person was introducing me to
>> concrete poetry. I wonder why?
>>
> Mainly, I suspect, because concrete poems were so obvertly unified. I
> still hold with the new critics on most things. But I may have more
> "advanced" ideas about how a poem can be unified than they did, although I
> doubt it. Your poem is surely unified as a scene and/or as a mood. If it
> weren't, it wouldn't be as effective as it seems to me it is. It isn't
> perfectly unified, but I don't believe any poem need be that; in fact, I
> hold that a perfectly unified work of art is a dead work of art. It is best
> if it is just sufficiently unified--which will vary for each engagent.
>
> My dogma on the subject is that unification of an artwork allows all its
> elements to be of aesthetic value for themselves /and /make aesthetically
> valuable connections with other elements of the work. But they must avoid
> overdoing it.
>
> --Bob
>
>
>
>
> Let me report that despite the language barrier, both the screenwriter and
>> director of ENCHAINEES contacted me after reading my cine-poem, and that now
>> my text appears publicly within a context they established. I've learned
>> that the film will be shown tomorrow on TV5 from Switzerland, and that it
>> has been screened in 15 Chinese cities, Vietnam, Dar es Salaam, Toronto, Sao
>> Paolo, Oslo,& . . .
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:32:42 -0500, Bob Grumman<[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry to be a pest (a very minor one, I hope), Barry, but while I'm sure
>>> you're right for those knowledgeable about Raymond Vouillamoz and
>>> DECHAINEES, someone ignorant of both like me, would not be able to find
>>> that unity--from the poem alone. But, yes, I consider a proper reader
>>> of the poem responsible for learning about V. and DECHAINEES. So it's
>>> my fault that I didn't see the unity you show to be there. Meanwhile,
>>> it's neat that the poem can work both and maybe other ways. Even if I'm
>>> the only one it works for my first way!
>>>
>>> --Bob
>>> On 3/10/2011 2:35 PM, Barry Alpert wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob,
>>>>
>>>> I could say that the closing couplet does "wrap up" the character of the
>>>> family as a whole, since it was uttered as a unifying gesture by a family
>>>> member whose very existence had been denied for 40 years by her sister and
>>>> her husband, and whose precise biological relation to their daughter and her
>>>> two daughters remained unknown until the revelation. So, yes, a miniature
>>>> family drama.
>>>>
>>>> Barry
>>>>
>>>
--
Andrew
http://hispirits.blogspot.com/
'Mother Waits for Father Late' republished available at
http://www.picaropress.com/
http://www.qlrs.com/poem.asp?id=766
http://frankshome.org/AndrewBurke.html
|