 |
 |
Hi everyone, I couldn't agree more with this: At 9:50 +0100 23/7/00, David Kennedy wrote: >More to the >point it contains a lot of work which canít really be called poetry and is >only called poetry because no-one can think of a better word for it. [I >should point out straight away that Iím not about to launch into a ëitís >terrible, it doesnít scan >or rhymeí diatribe. What I mean is that, to me, it makes less and less sense >to think of a lot >of so-called innovative poetry as poetry. Itís perhaps more a question of >text works or fine art with words or behaviour with/in language.] I've been saying this kind of thing for some time now. I do feel that the vastest majority of the work you bracket here and more is informed by 'poetics', but exactly what it's called is less of interest. Those who need limiting boundaries will call ceratin sonic works 'not music' or certain exhibitions 'not art'. Right now in many instances who cares? It's the work that is either of interest or not. Its category for consumption is secondary at best surely. love and love cris -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%