 |
 |
OK, Luke. I’m going to have to look at the Ashbery poem a bit in order to respond, so I will get back to you more precisely later. My first reaction is, given these lines are fragments (and much of the poem is collaged, which caused major critical complaint when these poems are released), how can you believe your interpretation is what Ashbery had in mind? How can you know that the authenticity you sense isn’t just a projection on your part? Or, simply, that it’s not part of your agreement with the writer that you will read his poetry openly as long as you can ascribe to it what you feel is authentic? Does the glove belong to the She, to the I, or is it a randomly lost glove? Is it an evening glove, or a baseball mitt? Is the field in the country or Shea Stadium? Does the word suddenly belong to the I or the She? How do you know? The fragmentation (especially when it’s out of context) allows for the reader to have their will with the words? In a way, that’s sort of the point of fragments. The other thing I need to know before spending time looking at the poems these sections are drawn from is, what do you mean by lower-order terms? Just that they cannot be read as meta-terms? And how does the implicit value system of hierarchy spin your designation here, if it does? I’ll add to this later, unfortunately quite a bit later given work demands, but I’m keeping this conversation in mind … 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 13, 2018, at 11:15 AM, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 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. > <image.png> > > 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] <mailto:[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 <http://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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 <http://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 <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[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! >>> >> >> > >