Thanks for replying to my points John.
I don't think I know what the "editorial project" might be for the innova5ive
poetries. It is not articulated, according to you. Is it Cris' "a commuinity
policy of openly negotitated values and a positionable critical readership"
, or does that veer closer to poetics, the "conflicting aesthetics" Cris
mentions?
It is arbitrary because individualised. I would prefer that to having the
entire show mediated by Iain Sinclair, or somebody; and, of course,
prefer the anti-hegemonic tack, if such were possibe.
I gues I still can't see what it is you'd want: perhaps: an editorial project
that accommodated conflicitng aesthetics without delimiting conflict.
One such scheme to inaugerate this might be to try the e nmail discuss a
poem idea, as an ongoing workshop. I'm not keen on a website myself,
since I seem to not be able to SEND anything to a websirte, only e mail. I
think Cris' concersn about access are crucial.
But it would need ground rules depending on whether it is conceived as
a show place for finished, or workshop work. I prefer the latter, and
even thought of trying to re-start the Tooting group meetings we ran in
London, by e mail. But then along came this mailbase. The former looks
too much like an attemopt to elevate a canon of tested texts. Are we
judging projects OR assisting the production of products (accepting that
distinction for a moment) I prefer a workshop so commnets are of use to
the writer and we might avoid a clash of aESTHETICS which is useless.
Somwe thoughts though I notice more I havene't opened yet. Will do
Robert
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|