 |
 |
Hi Giles, I guess you’re using ‘pure’ in the way we might distinguish ‘pure’ from ‘applied’ maths – here with no other end but itself in view? Just for one, I would consider poetry an art in the very same way as I would consider painting and music, and make no distinction at all (on this level of aesthetic ‘purity’) between them. Jamie From: GILES GOODLAND Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 1:56 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Rebecca Watts Many political (left) avant garde poets see (or profess to see) their poetry as an instrument of change. Hence not a pure art form. But the whole 'purify the language' idea is also instrumental. In fact I suspect few poets see poetry as a pure art form in the way they might see music or painting. Tim Allan wrote: I have always considered poetry to be an artform and if anything my problem in the past has been with people who did not see it as an 'artform' as such but as something essentially else - a therapy, a means of communication etc. So of course avant-garde poetry (or whatever term you want to use) is an artform. I don't see what the problem is. If any avant poets do not consider it an artform I really would like to know what they think it is.