>And yet, when folk say that 'X' is a performance poet, it seems reasonable
>clear that they do not mean that she (he) writes poetry.
>
Actually, in the world of official poetry I think everyone is a
"performance poet" now. I noticed on a recent flyer that Les Murray's agent
offers him precisely as "Performance Poet Les Murray"; I think you have to
do this if you want to get paid for appearing and especially if you want
public money to be involved.
My local Regional Arts Board no longer has a "Literature Department" it
only has a "Performing Arts Department." Recently I had to fill in a form
for grant-aid for the Poetical Histories pamphlets which included questions
about disabled access and how many actors I reckoned I would need to
employ. This was the only and correct form by which to apply for aid with
poetry publication. It didn't ask who or what I was publishing.
The notion of "cutting edge" literature among institutional officials is
apparently that it has got out of the museum of print and is on the streets
of stage. That is their dominant idea of how it can be up to date and
politically correct and thus viable.
I mention this for interest, it probably doesn't mean anything much. I
don't for a moment imply that any real performance poet is taking
advantage of this official rigidity, though some perple no doubt do. Cris
is right that all poetry can be seen as "performance" in a more or less
metaphorised sense, mounting a "stage" before an "assembly" and putting
something on which concerns expectation and response. I think this is a lot
healthier than the idea of private disclosure, "let me tell you about my
soul" etc. whispered into the ear of the uninvited.
/PR
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|