As nobody has responded to below I'm responding to myself with a question - Why do you find the terms 'experimental' and 'avant-garde' iffy?
My main reason is that both terms can be used by people to refer to work that is not experimental in any real sense and is certainly not avant-garde. How can the word experimental be applied to practises and methods that now have a long history - so many so-called experimental pieces are variations on previously executed works of art or anti-art so how can they be experimental? This is not a put-down of the works themselves, just of their being called experimental etc. The works might very well be excellent.
I don't believe like some that the term avant-garde is meaningless, except historically, but I do think its meaning has been so compromised by artists and the art world that the word should only be used to refer to those who use artistic activity in a purposely exploratory way for reasons that go beyond the aesthetic into the radically political challenge of changing life.
In that sense the avant-garde has been an utter failure. Instead of bringing art into life it has done everything possible to seal itself off from life for the glorification of its own sacred space as ART, with whatever money, reputation, careers and other prizes the world has been willing to bestow on its makers. It has been self-deceiving and complicit with the forces of capitalism. The worst thing about it is that the more it proclaims itself as being radical and experimental the more far-reachng is its deception, complicity and egoistical turn.
Have a nice day.
Tim Allen
On 7 Apr 2016, at 11:36, Tim Allen wrote:
> OK, time and time again the problem of what to call certain types of poetry, as far as groupings is concerned, crashes against the buffers. And it doesn't seem to count that time and time again when people like me use such words while openly admitting that the terms are provisional and inadequate throats still get jumped down. It's consistently maddening.
>
> The main terms are - Experimental. Avant-Garde. Post-Modern. Linguistically Innovative. Sometimes even vaguer terms are used such as Alternative or Non-Mainstream. Then of course the dreaded Language Poetry term, then of course Post-Language, a name I use quite a bit to designate certain poetry coming out of the US. I have used all these terms in different contexts while never fully comfortable or confident. The exceptions I suppose are those that are purposely published under a certain term, like the Language Poets for that limited period, or currently Conceptual poets etc.
>
> For me the most iffy terms have always been 'experimental' and 'avant-garde', for obvious reasons, whereas the term 'linguistically innovative', despite it's problems, I find less problematic. The term 'post-modern' is a so-in-so because the word is used differently in different contexts, generally used differently in the US for one thing. Oh and there is another term covering certain poets at a certain time - 'the Poetry Revival'.
>
> It is quite obvious that for such a large group of poets writing over such a long period the terms are going to be very fluid, there being no single term to cover them. But would it even be possible to use the terms with a bit more accuracy?
>
> When discussing poetry in a certain way, contextualising and comparing etc, we have to have usable terms.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
|