 |
 |
I'll try something quick and trivial, thanks Jaime. I'd suppose that "authenticity" might a meta quality. Here's two sections from *Europe*, totally out of context. My poetic is too rudimentary, but I'd begin to paraphrase the superficial meaning of 17 as *I moved up the field holding a glove*. And that in 18, the speaker is weeping for something he could not say to a woman, his tears like a song. Anyway, maybe beside the point... I think we MIGHT agree that the speaker in 17 is speaking with *conviction*, and in 18 regrets his lack of conviction, as love is tossed aside, a worthless nursery rhyme. Without getting into politics, Ashbery seems to be asking questions about his conviction. So maybe* authenticity *comes into play when associated terms, like conviction (I won't list alternatives), are approached so that they mesh with other associated terms, like doubt, to create something which complicated enough to warrant the reader's involvement with them, as responses / etc.. A meta quality as the term 'authenticity' is about lower order terms (conviction, doubt, freedom) combining in non trivial ways. I tried, and I hope it made sense. Cheers, Luke On 13 May 2018 at 18:57, Jaime Robles <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Implicit in my comment is the invitation to discuss the HOW and WHY of > authenticity in art. Which can go very far into questions of empathy, a > primary aspect of poetry as I see it. > > So, go ahead, Luke, please detail how you see authenticity functioning in > poetry. You don’t have to be right or comprehensive (or polite, direct > suffices), just pick up the gauntlet! Convince me that this word is more > than an imagined agreement between reader and writer. > > And, Jamie, thanks for your proofreading. I admire autonomy, and accuracy > in attribution. :-) > > > > > jaimerobles.com > > > > > ______________________________ > > QS: Let’s return to poetics. > JR: When did we leave? > > —From the conversation between Quinta Slef and Joan Retallack, The > Poethical Wager > > > > > > On May 13, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > May I politely disagree, Jamie? I mean isn't authenticity arguably one of > the more philosophically robust aesthetic terms? It could be more difficult > to recognize than e.g. pretense, or sincerity,, but, well I'm reminded of > an intro to Critical Theory I've read that suggests ideological critique > involves spending time with its ideologues, enjoying the local narcotic, > etc.. > > Cheers, > Luke > > On 13 May 2018 at 17:29, Jaime Robles <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I too find authenticity a troubling term, Tim. Not only because it seems >> antithetical to the basic concept of craft in art, but also because I’m not >> sure HOW or even WHY it applies to art. I can see the point of it in legal >> and political discussions, and even there it seems a shaky criterion. Part >> of the pro-Trump follower's affirmation of their preferred leader is that >> he is authentic. He says what he believes, etc. (little of which is true, >> of course). And much of Bernie Sanders appeal (v. Clinton) was around >> issues of authenticity. Too often just sticking to one’s perceptions >> (accurate or not) in a loud and insistent way is seen as authenticity, even >> honesty. It’s also undeniable that their followers feel loyalty, and that’s >> authentic. Though what engenders that feeling may be of questionable >> ethics. And when talking about authenticity we are talking ethics. >> >> I think it’s something I’d prefer to cross of the lists of artistic >> criteria, simply because authenticity lies, like beauty, in the eye of the >> beholder. >> >> If one has a feeling it’s authentic, period. >> >> How, or if one even should express that feeling accurately, is another >> issue. I believe that when someone says So’n’So is authentic, it means, >> simply, "I understand what that person felt; they have conveyed it >> accurately for me”. >> >> >> J >> >> >> jaimerobles.com >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________ >> >> QS: Let’s return to poetics. >> JR: When did we leave? >> >> —From the conversation between Quinta Slef and Joan Retallack, The >> Poethical Wager >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 11, 2018, at 3:44 AM, Tim Allen <0000002899e7d020-dmarc-reques >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Yes exactly Luke, the 'how' is still missing, at least in the sense of >> describing a 'how' that was special to Riley. I used the word 'authentic' >> because of its innate problems - it is one of the most difficult terms to >> use when applied to the arts, but nevertheless I think my use of it in the >> context of Riley is 'authentic'. >> >> Perceptions of and identifying authenticity in music is an even more >> contentious - the process that leads from authentic feeling and expression >> first to model/form then to simulacrum and finally to soulless golem (e.g. >> x factor or whatever) is almost impossible to untangle. >> >> Cheers >> >> Tim >> >> On 11 May 2018, at 02:03, Luke wrote: >> >> I'm still missing a *how*. No-one is innately authentic, so how does one >> go about it? Incidentally. I was recently listening to Kurt Cobain, of >> Nirvana, ha, and it struck me so, also. So not limited to poetry, anyway! >> >> >> >> > >