dear cris
>Hi allen, quite agree with aspects of your take on Barrett. Re the 'three',
>don't disagree on their differences at all. They have an extremely various
>practice between them . But was suggesting that
>as a 'group' (very much in and out of each houses and pockets over
>a sustained number of years, talked, co-organised, performed together
>- even in some instances wrote 'together') there's a site at which
>their interests converse. That's the site that interests me and
>provokes me. Maube it's my imaginary site - so
>
agree with what you were and are saying. my comment hadn't intended
criticism of your comment.
i remember Johanna Drucker's factory space for the letter press
experiments, with Steve Benson in a corner improvising and Abigail Child
showing those fast cut-up movies. and the poet's theatre. The relation
didn't seem fraught, then Barrett Watten, Bob Perelman, Carla Harryman
and Alan Bernheimer would come by with many others. It didn't seem
difficult. But to give all these guys the same marketing name was an act
of genius. you gotta be serious, they just are not using the same
aesthetics stance.
I agree with Marjorie, it's not a matter of that. it's much more a
matter of their stance against the crud they were set against. it's much
more about the wllingness to debate a view of Louis Zukofsky'is work
different from the going ideas. the fiery dispute with Robert Ducan over
this. that's where the issue somehow consolidated one faction against a
different one. now does thast man they were arguing the same aestetic?
no, it meant an openness sometimes misunderstood outside of the marketed
name _Language poet_
the "group's" support for Mac Low, Coolidge, Kerouac, Shklovsky, Frank
O'Hara, Larry Ochs music label, the "TALKS" sessions indicates their
eclecticism not a closed shop. as you say their interests converse.
allen
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|