 |
 |
I mean, given its abuse the line-break. I should apologize more, Luke On 23 January 2018 at 20:21, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > when my heart is broken > i don’t grieve > > > *i shatter* > I mean for me, for what it's worth, it reads a bit like an inability to > tell inside from out. Which may work in a love poem, or may help to > reproduce certain discrepancies with the self. Right? I mean outside the > complaint of "OVC" this reads fine, for me. > > Just my silly opinion. > > On 23 January 2018 at 20:05, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> > Poetry is often the most pattern-making of the verbal arts. >> >> And what patterns do you see in the works quoted (ridiculed) by Watts? >> >> Luke >> >> On 23 January 2018 at 20:01, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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:* GILES GOODLAND <[log in to unmask]> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:47 PM >>> *To:* [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:* GILES GOODLAND <[log in to unmask]> >>> *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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >