Nothing in human activity and culture is an essence, even though I love the game language plays that makes it appear so. There is no single definition of art therefore there is no single definition of poetry. Some things get closer to an available description because of their use, literature for example. So what I should have said below is
'I have never had a problem with treating poetry as an artform'.
and the important word there is 'as'.
When pushed on definitions of poetry in the past I have usually only been satisfied with 'activity' and even 'habit'. This is not scepticism, it is simply an attempt to be honest and avoid stupidity. This is why the word 'artform' also seems appropriate, at least for the way I engage with the thing. If you do not see poetry primarily as an artform but as something else then it is still poetry but it will not be the same because it will be both trying to do different stuff and in actuality doing different stuff (these two things are not necessarily the same).
Cheers
Tim
On 23 Jan 2018, at 13:30, Tim Allen 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.
On 22 Jan 2018, at 17:48, David Lace wrote:
f poetry is an art form as the article says, is avantgarde poetry also an art form? And if so, on what basis? From what I’ve seen of it has no discernible “craft” elements, and seems just like anything goes, as long as you can find an intellectual rationale to describe your “procedure” (an avantgarde compositional buzzword).
I think the word “art” is overused a lot these days. I have a feeling that the word is seen as an embarrassment by devoted avantgarde practitioners.
