 |
 |
Damnation -- another posting wheeched off-list. Right -- Hi Joseph, Interesting and complex topic this, re: New Formalism. As a formalist myself perhaps I can take a crack at it. >whose work is so universally dull they seem to have raised dullness to the level of an aesthetic principle.< Universally? Wooaah there, camel! Dullness is in the eye of the beholder. I have heard Formalists argue that free-verse is universally dull, and I wouldn't agree with either that statement or your rebuttal. Let's not turn this into a School argument. Depends very much on the particular poem. In a previous thread, someone introduced the notion that "some poets write as if Joyce/ Pound/ Eliot had never existed" (or words to that effect), implying that the innovations made in poetry had been abandoned by the Movement perversely, perhaps as a kind of artistic cowardice . . . a retrogression not similarly suffered in the visual arts. This is a fair point, but there are different contexts at work. The formalists, in observing these particular modernist developments, could argue that poetry was in severe danger of becoming the sole property of academics. While modern art has always had a public space in which to declare itself, and thus encourage debate, poetry has increasingly withdrawn into universities -- with an average of 5% of the population attending, and therefore only a minute fraction of these engaged in the study of Enlish Lit (0.01 % ??) In other words, an arcane art for the initiated only. The visual arts can also bank on large amounts of hype, shock- value, immediate impacts, media coverage, etc. The last poem which achieved similar results was Tony Harrison's 'v' -- highly formalist, but -- it was aired on television, and contained the c-word. After the usual suspects had been suitably offended, the poem emerged as itself -- a public elegy. A form of address, not a parcel for professors. I've just been reading 'Binary Myths 2', conversations with poet- editors. The blurb on the back reads "poets are generally the main readers of other poets' work". However this has happened, it's outrageous. Imagine paintings viewed only by other painters. The formalists would perhaps argue that modernist poetry is to blame, in at least some degree, for the wholesale abandonment of the art-form by the reading public. And, perhaps, like those artists which specialise in environmental sculpture, decided that poetry ought to work in the reading environment as opposed to the academic. Which makes it no less challenging, necessarily. Again, depends on the poem. There is a point to be made about the post-post-modern age as well. We are no longer partaking in an unbroken line of Tradition perpetuated by Great Men -- traditions are now there for the choosing, boundaries merge, cultures cross. This is accepted, as far as I know, in all the arts. The pick & mix paradigm. So ultimately I see no need for poetry to adhere to any kind of pedigree, whether modernist *or* formalist. It's up to the creative individual to follow their own lights, whatever they may be, according to their creative temperament. A Glaswegian writing nothing but haiku . . . . why not? Viva la différence -- down with skool. Andy %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%