Yes, I guess the best poetry embodies some awareness of this. Why most political poetry is 'bad', too. 

Giles



From: Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018, 20:02
Subject: Re: Rebecca Watts

Try as one might there’s no getting away from meaning! Unless perhaps you’re Kurt Schwitters, but then you’ll be channelling cosmic babble from Ursa Major.
Poems generally want to play with meanings. Of course pigments and notes don’t (except perhaps to a synaesthetic) signify anything in themselves, and words do, so that’s also part, if you like, of the palette of language as medium. But then colours, notes, and words when combined in particular ways begin to signify differently, and make meanings as well as patterns. Poetry is often the most pattern-making of the verbal arts.  Unlike painting and music, only poetry can be paraphrased (because it operates in the same medium) but the futility of paraphrasing any good poem helps us see it has an oblique or estranging or transforming attitude towards the received meanings and perhaps ideologies embedded in words. Pure or impure that’s one reason why it’s an art.
 
(This isn’t an attempt at aesthetic philosophy, just a few notes.)
Jamie
 
 
 
From: [log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1516730063029_77766" title-off="">GILES GOODLAND
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1516730063029_77761" title-off="">[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rebecca Watts
 
Yes, I always thought somehow 'pure' poetry was impossible (apart from rarefied forms such as 'sound poetry' or concrete poetry. Or the extremes of aestheticism. It is impossible to read a poem without taking account of the meaning, and mapping that onto the world. It always seems messily entangled with beliefs and disagreements we may have. This with a lingering belief from my student days that poetry should be engaged since all language is ideological. Language always has a position.



From: Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 January 2018, 14:36
Subject: Re: Rebecca Watts
 
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: [log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" title-off="">GILES GOODLAND
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 1:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" title-off="">[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.