Jamie, “patronage” is a good word to use. There’s nothing wrong with literary patronage per se—literary modernism probably wouldn’t have happened without it. Nor would many now historic artistic movements. I think Tim’s point and the Argotist’s is that such “patronage” has become too organised and almost factory-like. Almost serving as a PR campaign for avantgarde poetry that is seen as “the acceptable sort” as opposed to that which isn’t. This is what the general gist of Argotist piece seems to be getting at when it says:
‘The ultimate concern regarding the academisation of avant-garde poetry, is that a two-tier system is being created, comprising of experimental poetry that is officially sanctioned, or legitimised, by the academy, and an experimental poetry that is not.’
The recent mentioning of Elisabeth Bletsoe by Tim as being underrated/ignored seems to illustrate what the quote above seems to be saying.
-------------------Original Message--------------------
Jamie McKendrick wrote:
Which takes us nicely back to Damien’s shark.
But I still think Luke’s question about how this patronage is actually supposed to function deserves an answer. (Patronage or in Bourdieu’s terms ‘institutionalised cultural capital’...
J
|