 |
 |
Well Wystan I hope I haven't missed the swing of what you say about the little voice within. The way conceptual artists set up templates to sort and then compose information, seems at times like self-criticism, where the excercise in the atelier provides a styling of subject material. To some degree anthropologists categorise and slowly compose their argument, again there method is about critical templates. Perhaps poetry is hopelessly subjective and coloured by methods and musics more subtle than the visual. cheers Ruark --- "Wystan Curnow (FOA ENG)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Good point Kari. I have to confess to been very > guilty of this. > I can't count the number of potential masterpieces > I've destroyed. > In fact, many's the time I've put finger to key and > thought here comes > another potential masterpiece, and within seconds a > little voice says to me > you pretentious, self-important git, its shit > already and shit is what it's > going to be, stop right now. And I say thanks to > that little voice,thank you > my sweet censor. Those are the worst times. > Wystan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kari Foster [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Friday, 9 March 2001 4:35 a.m. > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: STIMULUS: POETRY AND CENSORSHIP > > > A form of censorship that is hard to judge correctly > is self-censorship. Some great poets have been > excessively critical of their own work, to the point > of destroying potential masterpieces. Others, who > apply insufficient self-censorship, run the risk of > publishing unworthy poems. > > Kari Foster _____________________________________________________________________________ http://store.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Store - The fastest, easiest way to open an online store.