 |
 |
Yes, I think Duncan's statement comes out from the way he sees poetry as a techno-social field - and as such, he sort of beams in, looks around, sums up, then beams out again... E >From: Geraldine Monk <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: Geraldine Monk <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Critical survey by Andrew Duncan of UK poetry anthologies. >Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:18:07 +0100 > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Edmund Hardy" > >Subject: Re: Critical survey by Andrew Duncan of UK poetry anthologies. > > > > "We don't go into art to become somebody else; we go in to become >everybody > > else." > > >Wrong. We don't 'go' into art at all. We are art. It's not a separate >entity that we go in and out of - it's within us - we can go in and out of >styles and disciplines and approaches but we can't go in and out of art - >it just is - like the late Alan Clarke said of Mrs Thatcher 'You're not >meant to like her she just is'. Or if you prefer a less tainted version >Art is Us. > >So the rest of Duncan's statement is redundant. However since he started >this platitudinous nonsense let me finish: we don't 'go' into art to >become anyone but ourselves because to everyone else we are everybody else. > It's so beautifully symbiotic and empathic. It's how we survive as a >social group. > >The 'I' in poetry may be singular and personal but if it doesn't carry the >plurality of recognition then it is doesn't carry at all - a bunch of mad >relatives living in the attic has nothing to do with it. > >G. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Win tickets to the sold out Live Earth concert! http://liveearth.uk.msn.com