David, the quote you give sums up the issue well. Though I’ve trespassed onto the conversation, I’m sure others here know more than I do, as I’m situated on the periphery of the academy, and I’m not particularly signed up to any camp.
Michael and Tim’s point about Elizabeth Bletsoe may well be relevant, but there are quite a number of poets we could all think of that may have been overlooked for other reasons than the lack of academic endorsement.
So the question doesn’t have to be skeptical, but I too was wondering how much difference being in some kind of academic circle actually makes for individual poets, how it helps them find an audience. If I hear some poet praised by what I consider a trustworthy source I’d be disposed to look at the work. This process was traditionally done by reviewing, but that seems an activity in decline. What we’re calling the avant-garde does seem to have a far higher profile with regard to critical articles, research etc. so perhaps it’s there that the exclusion for some is more keenly felt.
Jamie
> On 10 Jan 2018, at 17:56, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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
|