[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 04/22/2000 5:07:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << 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
>
> Ye-ah, I understand that, and I like Cage and MacLow. However, I can help but
> find it so curious that when many people whose voiceshad not been well
> presented (afraid to use the word represented) in art began to speak and tell
> their stories and experiences and visions and have presence in the public
> sphere of art, a whole movement comes along that wipes out the persona. I'm
> not saying it's a conspiracy, I know that's not the case.
>
> And I feel that Cage may have been for the depersonalization of the artist,
> but still managed to do it in a way that his name is greatly bandied about
> and well-known. Did he have a day job? Stuff like that interests me. If the
> artist really wants to be depersonalized, let him/her get a day job in a
> factory, corporation or fast food restaurant. What is the point of
> depersonalizing the artist if fame and adoration is still the result, I ask
> you. Be anonymous if you want depersonalization. Go on, I dare you. How about
> create art anonymously, don't talk about it, and see what the CHANCES are for
> fame.
>
> I think chance operations are interesting, but only as an interesting path,
> not the whole road. I'm much more interested in what attemption (rather than
> intention) can accomplish. Not only in art, but in the world.
>
Well, I do agree with you about Cage. I made the point recently to someone that
Cage was never the anarchist he claimed to be in all his interviews and books.
Real anarchy would have threatened his position as an artist. There were certain
admirable qualities Cage had though. For instance, during most of his career he
really lived hand-to-mouth and had to teach etc.. It wasn't til later in his
career that he became self-sufficient as an artist and then he adopted a very
strange attitude: he maintained a strict work-ethic. After all that talk about
how unemployment was the state of Budhhist enlightenment (which I believe he got
from Berlin Dada) , he proceeded to become a professional composer/aritist.
Ironic, no?
The reason I don't do my writing and art anonymously is that it has been done to
death and why make that sacrifice to cover old ground. I mean Duchamp said "go
underground" but it reflects such a cynical stance.
I also agree that chance operation are only part of an overall picture. I write
stuff that is intentional for sure. Definitely low surrealism too.
Semi-automatic. Burst and re-edit, transmogrified, mutated etc. but I like
systems/process too which is why Fluxus poetry is so great. How bout you?
RA
>
>
> In a message dated 04/22/2000 5:07:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> << 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
>
> >>
