 |
 |
David, do you see any lack of logic in making an analogy between the history of poetry, a relatively universal and ancient art form (the techniques and appropriate subjects of which have been taught in a diverse range of educational/court/hedge/castle/camp/college contexts in the course of all that space and time) to jazz, a 20th century American invention in popular music? I love jazz but if, for you, poetry is jazz, your poetry is very particular and Pound's "make it new" might work (what Shelley definition are you thinking of?). Comparing poetry to music works for me (though not for Mark who hasn't been to Ireland enough to know that hearts beat even before tongues form words). But comparing poetry to jazz involves rejecting so much, including the conservative functions of poetry and, of course, its history, in many cultures including English, of expressing the ideas of those supported by the best of what education, at any given time, had to offer. I can see your point in relation to jazz, that's history, and what was a massively exciting popular and virtuosic form is so no longer. I don't grasp the analogy with poetry. Maybe if Slam was as big as jazz, and as fun, and it moved into the universities after 60 or 70 years .... Well Slam *is* pretty big, and it *is* pretty fun, and I do actually know quite a few Slam poets teaching and they do pretty good work, though they're getting on perhaps. Now I've thrown Slam into the mix, it'll be interesting to see people's embrace of it. Your analogy with architecture works better for me as, like writing, architecture has a commitment to both function and art, ideally. I don't really get your dismissal of the vast majority of architects, I suppose because of the particularity of my own situation working closely as a writer with architects and architecture students. I get daily consolation from some buildings in Providence, including the State House (7th largest unsupported dome in the world, though some say the 11th, McKim, Mead and White--McKim, architect too of spaces in the Boston Public Library which have consoled me), and my humble house. Maybe you're right to focus on the "vast majority" who don't come up to scratch for you. The achievements are so stunning though, when achieved, through the almost unaccountable miracle (to a poet's mind) of so many people and so much power and money coming together (generally to express power and money, it is true). The poetry equivalent is probably the words of Akhmatova being carried away from her in the intent memory and on the tongues of others, at a time when they could not be committed to paper. M On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:50 AM, David Latane <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Mairead--"Are the ends of the poet really "fantastically difficult," as > compared to those of practitioners/thinkers in other fields, e.g., political > science, mathematics, digital media, etc?" > > I don't think poetry is exceptional, because I''ll stand with Shelley's > definition of it -- but would argue that the tendency I pointed to operates > in other fields as well. > > For instance, jazz has been made a degree track in music schools and many > musicians drawn to jazz are now getting credentialed, and then getting jobs > credentialing others. De gustibus, of course, but I'm not hearing too many > new Ornettes or Coltranes with a "Professor" before their names. But it's > fully understandable why someone would like respect and a salary with > benefits to do what they love. Still--compared with the Village Vanguard in > 1972 sitting in a sterile college auditorium listening to jazz faculty > (highly skilled) play to coerced music students, some of whom are texting > their friends. . . . > > Some of the other fields mentioned, such as architecture, have a > combination academic and apprenticeship way of training professionals, the > vast majority of whom never attempt anything creative to begin with. > Organized credentially makes sure the decorated sheds don't fall down. > > If the goal of the poet is satisfying personal expression in pleasing form, > then there is no reason why an academic program isn't ideal training, since > it will acculturate one to be satisfied by the very forms it is in the > process of training one to produce. If the goal of the poet is to "make it > new" . . . that's a different matter. > > David Latané > >