david.bircumshaw wrote:
> ... I did say earlier that I
> thought that maybe the disagreement between you and Alison was along the
> lines of 'Art versus craft', yup, another dichotomy there<<

Well even this is not quite right, it seems to me, unless you want to
make the claim that art takes no craft. Craft is necessary but not
sufficient for art, in my view, while art is neither necessary nor
sufficient for craft.

> I notice with
> interest that you are a skilled worker yourself and wonder how much that
> perspective influences your views.<<

Well, the very notion of "skilled worker" dictates an hierarchy of
quality, and some sort of test of quality to determine that
hierarchy. Your, and Alison's, and Mark Weiss's claim about poetry at
least (and perhaps art in general) seems to be that there is no skill
required, no craft needed, and no hierarchy wanted. Everyone's poems
are just as valuable as everyone else's, if I understand what you and
she seem to be claiming.

That Mark and Alison claim to revise extensively seems to me to
undermine that claim thoroughly: what's the point of revision if all
poetry is equally valuable as it is? The only reason to revise is to
make improvements, it seems to me -- and there may be where my
"perspective" as a "skilled worker" may intrude most pointedly.
Perhaps Mark and Alison (and those who agree with them) and you
really do believe that there is no skill and no craft required to
write poetry, and that revision is valuable just the same way the
original is: because the poet enjoyed doing it, but not because the
poem is "better" or because any skill or craft was involved.

> Erminia of late has introduced some much
> wider issues, such as the questions about 'value' in current society, which
> I think helpful in that they broaden the debate.<<

Well, is it your claim, then, that craftless skillless poetry has
value in current society? If so, what is that value?

Marcus Bales

[log in to unmask]
http://www.designerglass.com