In a message dated 04/22/2000 1:12:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< George Free wrote:
> >If production was involved, it should be of the non-expressive,
> >non-intentional sort -- a la Cage, Mac Low etc.
>
> Anyone read the "Gematria" stuff that Jerome Rothenberg did? It's
> Flux-related, as it's process-oriented, nonexpressive (that is,
> expresses the language as a thing in itself, not the persona of the
> writer).
AK >>
Of course, I'm not a Fluxus poet, and I rather like seeing the persona of the
writer expressed. I don't fully understand the other position, but I see
capitalism as one big effort to wipe out the human voice and eccentric (read
non-commodified) persona and replace it with manufactured voices or, worse,
no voice except the "voice" of the commodity. When I think of all the
beautiful voices of the poets I've read in my life, I shiver to think of a
world where this kind of poetry did not exist, where poetry becomes only a
trick of language and not an expression of human experience or vision.
What is the prejudice against expression? Perhaps someone can explain.
I know people fear sentimental manipulation (which I consider poetic
obesity), just as I fear the poem devoid of the human touch (which I consider
poetic anorexia). Personally, I love the persona. Besides, underneath the
poem, or beside it, over it or through it, is indeed the persona that created
it . . . and isn't literature (and art) in general just an excuse to reveal
one's psychic guts and vision to a reader (futile as that desire might be)?
Even the desire to hide the persona reveals such. Of course, this is a big
world and there's always room for both. But personaly speaking . . .
BP
