i wouldn’t presume to speak for the ‘conceptual poets’, but i don’t think it’s necessary anymore for a poet to be able to write poetry, no, just like it isn’t necessary for a visual artist to be able to draw.
to me, poetry is where intensest engagements with language in art play out.
ja
http://vispo.com
> On Nov 9, 2014, at 8:14 AM, Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Jim, just because something isn't 'necessary' it doesn't mean that it's not valuable. What you should have said below, of course, and maybe chickened out of because it might sound too extreme, was 'nor is it necessary for a poet to know how to write poetry' - and surely, for the conceptualists, that is exactly what it should say.
>
> This topic always causes a conflict in my poor brain. On the one hand I love it both when boundaries are expanded and when towers are burnt down, especially when both happen at the same time, but on the other hand I object really strongly to any childish ideology which automatically gives value to one process while automatically denigrating another. A poem does not have any in-built value BECAUSE it is written on a piece of paper, and neither does a poem have an in-built value because it has been made by an electronic process.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim A.
>
>
>
> On 9 Nov 2014, at 06:27, jim andrews wrote:
>
>> t isn’t necessary for a visual artist to know how to draw anymore. nor is it necessary for a poet to know how to write doggerrel.
>
|