George et al
It's the Cagean "depersonalization of the artist" & chance operations
proceedures which account for this bias. Jackson MacLow's poetry is an excellent
example.
RA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
