 |
 |
Sure, fair point, indeed, Robin, and please don't think I'm trying to discount these experiences, or rank them below what I'm arguing for: if anything, I'm arguing for it, among poets, because I think that, except among poets, "poetry in the wordless" is not seen at all: also, in fact, in poetry, the wordless in poetry is not seen in poetry. Painting and words, different from music, yes. But, say, what is it in a narrative, in the compact rushing succinctnesses of Ovid or the Bible, that caused painters to "see" something, from a text, from before their era, and paint it, so that readers might see that painting as what they felt between the lines, set up in the white space of imagination as they paused on an image or, better, a rhythm and texture effect, when they read Ovid or the Bible. This kind of "setting" went first of all in painting, and is hard to find, of any quality, in modern music (as in modern readings of poetry often); I wonder if that's because there is a kind of adolescent rebellion (which was one of my first interrogations of this discussion of the 70's cross-disciplines, viz punk) that mistakes modernity for gestures of power over authority/the past/maturity - although these gestures of power have the force of pedantry (the "there is something wrong with the tradition so far, therefore it is incomplete, therefore completely wrong" duff modernity syllogism) as their authority, they place modernity-cool as somewhere I find icy. Ira P.S. Digression? I'm busy typing up some elaborate process work, and have, every time I've done it, experienced intense memory rush, as if my conscious brain is occupied and I am dreaming/being. I find myself wondering if this is available to anyone, musician or painter, working in detail, close up, that the back of their head starts coming forward, or how differently in each discipline, how much depending on how singular one is on the "texture" ie to me specialist appeal to a specialist audience, alone? On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 15:33:32 GMT [log in to unmask] wrote: > From: [log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 15:33:32 GMT > Subject: Re: "70's" type art/music/poetry now? > To: cris cheek <[log in to unmask]>, > Ira Lightman <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: [log in to unmask] > > Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 16:56:07 BST > To: cris cheek <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: [log in to unmask] > Priority: Normal > Subject: Re: "70's" type art/music/poetry now? > From: Ira Lightman <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-to: Ira Lightman <[log in to unmask]> > > Ira wrote: "This poetry in the "wordless" is one > of the things I always look for in art, and don't > find in a lot of BritArt..." > > I believe I know what you mean, Ira, and I agree with the sentiment, > but my point, to which you were responding, can`t let me subscribe > (yet) to the terms you use... You had talked about music, which has > a syntax and therefore could be regarded as "like poetry" (similar > to, but not) - then you seem to conflate music and visual arts under > the rubric "wordless" as if painting too has its "poetry" [this could > be true, I`m willing to be convinced, but I can`t bring myself to say it, > out of respect for painting]."Poetry IN the `wordless`", you reach in > and find it, given. What about poetry AT or > TO or AGAINST the wordless, where face-to-canvas with the mute object > you`re talking to yourself again? > > > robin %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%