Yes, absolutely.
I do think the scientific connotation of 'experimental' is a
misunderstanding in this context. But it does have a lineage: it goes
back to the very particular and special sense in which Zola used the word.
Zola really did believe he was engaged in a scientific practice (as
formulated by Claude Bernard). Of course this doesn't mean that
experimental science has anything to do with -- who? -- (trigger warning!)
Damien Hirst or Clark Coolidge.
And, as we all know, it's the bourgeoisie who are truly shocking.
On 8/27/15 1:28 PM, "British & Irish poets on behalf of Mark Weiss"
<[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>I have no use in our context for "revolutionary," but this is a pretty
>thorough misunderstanding of "experimental" as I use the word, and as I
>work as a poet. It's also at odds with the dictionary. Real simple. I
>don't think most of us of any stripe are out to epater anyone at this
>point. An experimental poem as I understand it is a playing out of
>Creeley's take on form and content. The form, and the content, discovered
>in the act. In terms of practice this really is a boundary marker, selon
>moi, although the boundary is necessarily porous. And there really are
>different kinds of things in the world worthy of a nametag for
>convenience in discussion.
>
>Best,
>Mark
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jeremy F Green <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Aug 27, 2015 3:13 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: a good horsewhipping (was "delusions of whiteness", etc.)
>>
>>I'd never heard of the poet Peter mentions, so I found my way to his
>>blog,
>>read a (frankly, rather trite) poem about football, failed to discover
>>any
>>Martians or Martianism, but did come across a passage from a Michael
>>Donaghy interview which suggests that there are all sorts of phantoms
>>floating around the putative divide. I don't find this any more helpful
>>than frustratingly vague accounts of a supposed 'mainstream':
>>
>>"But look at those sexy words used all too frequently to describe
>>contemporary art and literature, 'experimental' and 'revolutionary'. The
>>first is a metaphor filched from science - experimental art doesn't have
>>a
>>control group, doesn't collate and publish its findings. And
>>'revolutionary' properly describes a brick thrown at a police cordon, not
>>a poem in Parataxis. Among the most cherished illusions of the
>>avant-garde
>>is the idea that bourgeois art consoles, pleases and mollifies with
>>received notions of beauty, whereas avant-garde art shocks and challenges
>>and doesn't seek to please. I'm always dismayed by this kind of
>>self-delusion. The audience for avant-garde art is a middle-class
>>audience
>>that pays to be shocked, bored or insulted, much in the same way that
>>Mistress Wanda's clients pay to be horsewhipped. It's an audience that
>>knows what it wants and is comfortable with its rituals and cliches.
>>Whether it's a urinal on a pedestal in 1910 or a poem composed entirely
>>of
>>semi-colons in 1997 ('everything changes but the avant-garde', said
>>Auden), the audience expects to retreat from a direct and complex
>>experience of the craftsmanship, to ideas about art.
>>
>>
>>The most common of these ideas can be phrased as 'Justify your
>>instinctive
>>reaction that this is not a work of art.' In other words, the burden of
>>proof is placed with the audience, where in former ages it belonged to
>>the
>>artist. Whatever the quality of your work, if it strikes the critical
>>powers-that-be as 'anti-poetic', it is de facto worth talking about.
>>Fine.
>>I enjoy avant-garde work from Duchamp to Damien Hirst, to poets like
>>Clark
>>Coolidge, but let's not delude ourselves with the naive and sentimental
>>notion that such art is 'progressive'. I'm angry about that pretence.
>>Capitalism long ago defeated the avant-garde by accepting it as another
>>style. Yet artists continue to present themselves as an offence to the
>>establishment even as they accept fat cheques from the Saatchi Gallery or
>>attend academic conferences on 'oppositional' poetries."
>>
>>From www.benwilkinson.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On 8/27/15 8:00 AM, "British & Irish poets on behalf of Peter Riley"
>><[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Don't get the dreads, Tim, the dog may catch them. I wasn't expecting
>>>you to answer all those questions,, just to consider they may be more
>>>interesting than senses of usurpation (which I've knows myself quite
>>>well in my time and there is, somewhere, some kind of justification,
>>>or used to be). (The king supreme of the brand of resentment involved
>>>is Anthony Barnett). (Listening to a young poet called Ben Wilkinson
>>>recently I had to conclude that Martianism is not dead).
>>>P
>>>
>>>On 27 Aug 2015, at 14:07, Tim Allen wrote:
>>>
>>>Good lord Jamie, too much for this lovely day. The bits I feel I can
>>>respond to I will in separate posts if I can (but it might be
>>>tomorrow), but some of below I just don't know enough about to be able
>>>to judge its relevance. Also had a reply from Peter where the prospect
>>>of trying to answer fills me with dread. Hi Peter. So patience. I'd
>>>love it if some folk out there could chip in and help but I think the
>>>list's ten million lurkers are all on holiday.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Tim
|