> If your desire is to educate,
Yeah, I understand where you`re coming from, Chris, and appreciate
your reply. Re: the above quote (and a remark of some other a few
posts ago, a barb along the lines of, I hope we`re not in the
schoolroom or something)... Christ almighty, how could I presume?
My boggling mind. I think of the list like a
shoulder-to-shoulder forum; in fact, part of the problem I have with
the way that people defended Douglas Clark (the way that, not the
fact that) was what I caught as a slightly patronising pedagogical
protectionism. Your position would seem to me to be of this sort,
Chris. You don`t want Douglas to justify his sweeping dismissals
(all of Pound bar "Near Perigord"; all of W.S. Graham; all of Roy
Fisher, &c.) but (I imagine) you and everyone else would rapidly lose
interest if we ALL did the same, if all we had were a series of
rapid-fire, abyssal speech-acts. (I`ve got a copy of the journal
Modern Painters, a few years old now, with Peter Fuller`s final
interview, and it is with Clement Greenberg. Two men who ran most of
the available gamut to try and find a way to talk about post-war art
and still make sense: the ancient Greenberg reaches a point where all
he has are these speech-acts, admits there are nothing to ground
them; the interview becomes a farce, with Fuller throwing out names:
Pollock, de Kooning, Olitski &c. and Greenberg going, "Pollock`s
above de Kooning, Olitski`s above de Kooning below Pollock; Smith is
above Caro &c. on and on. Peter Manson and I have toyed with the
idea of performing it as a play.)
all best
robin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|