 |
 |
Hi Michael, I see what you mean. In that second interview/exchange many intriguing issues about praxis emerge. I should probably not sound off about this but I do have a concern with certain aspects of visual poetics that the poet/artists are doing neither art form a favour. Over the last couple of years since encountering Xu Bing's work (a good selection of which can be found in the catalogue Landscape/Landscript) which not only inventively uses calligraphic techniques but also particular calligram motifs, favoured as they are by a tradition, work which I think is original and at times stunningly beautiful, I've been wondering why western approaches to the same hybridity leave me so often dissatisfied. Could it just be that he's an enormously gifted visual artist and most of the poets aren't? Grenier mentions Cy Twombly as a counterpart whose work may relegate his own and I'd have been interested to see how he might pursue this...perhaps he does - I haven't finished. Jamie > On 23 Jun 2016, at 16:49, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Likewise, Jamie. ... > > I believe the significance of Grenier's work is in the mass - it's the fact of his praxis that matters -. Or maybe I should say the significance is in the full context of this art and artist. I'm not saying it very well. But what I mean is, focussing on a single Grenier poem, inevitably very slender, doesn't strike me as the right way to approach this kind of oeuvre.