Sunday 14 December 2008

Resurgence of painting's popularity bodes well for lyrical poetry, I think.

Peter Darbyshire's CanCult.ca points to this article by Deborah Campbell in Canadian Art magazine, and while it is about the resurgence in the popularity of painting as an artform, I think the general ideas behind this resurgence in painting's popularity bode well for lyrical poetry, too.

The whole article is very interesting, but, for me, it boils down to this:

For artists who came of age in the 1980s and 1990s, painting had not only been knocked from its centuries old pedestal but had become a very nearly leprous form, replaced by conceptual and -- particularly in Vancouver -- photo-based art. To be a young painter in a university program at the time was to be bludgeoned with critical texts such as Douglas Crimp’s famous 1981 essay “The End of Painting,” a defi nitive attack on the medium that today might be considered as infl uential -- and as wrong-headed -- as Francis Fukuyama’s essay “The End of History?”

...

“The conceptual practice was very good for Vancouver in that it established an example of success -- that local artists can be respected internationally and have signifi cant careers,” he says. The unfortunate side effect was that other possibilities were all but foreclosed.

“Painting was incorrect and the correct thinkers scorned it,” he continues. “Under conceptualism, human empathy was replaced with correct thought and intellection and self-pride in intellection. Spirit was taken off the agenda. Rhythm was taken off the agenda. Soul was taken off the agenda. The only thing left was the narrow spectrum of the intellectual.” -- (Neil Campbell, a sessional instructor at Emily Carr whose abstract geometric paintings opened the fall 2008 season at Marianne Boesky Gallery in New York.)

...

Which makes one think. Could it be that a lopsided emphasis on intellect -- methodical, analytic, scholarly, bloodless -- is losing traction? It may be that the failure of intellect, of technology, to contend with the troubles confronting the planet -- troubles too often brought about by technological innovation and its Edward Burtynsky-esque consequences -- has engendered a backlash. Or that, at a time when it’s often said that anyone can make a movie on a laptop, we want to see something anyone can’t do -- like make really interesting stuff with their hands. Or maybe people have just gotten bored.


I am completely in favour of this boom for the tactile arts. As Peter Darbyshire said on his blog, we should support "anything that’s about craft rather than just being a gimmick." The reason I think this bodes well for lyrical poetry is pretty simple. Movements in literary circles tend to trail movements in the art world, and this might mean that people are also getting bored with poetry that is methodical, analytic, scholarly, and bloodless. I, for one, grow every day more and more tired of poetry that seems to exist for no other purpose than to illustrate some tautological tidbit of critical theory, which is a creative impulse I really can't reconcile with a love of poetry. It isn't difficult to plug some words into a formula and watch the intellectualized gibberish spill forth. But where is the craft? Where is the love? Wanting to become a poet because you love critical theory is like wanting to become a chef because you love cutlery. The result is something no one should have to stomach.

22 comments:

Wally Keeler said...

A person who loves cutlery is a butcher. A person who loves scalpels is a surgeon. A person who loves keyboards is a programmer. Vive le paintbrush! Vive le quill!

Mark said...

I, for one, grow every day more and more tired of poetry that seems to exist for no other purpose than to illustrate some tautological tidbit of critical theory, which is a creative impulse I really can't reconcile with a love of poetry.

I'm extremely sympathetic to the desire for a renewed emphasis on craft, but I'm pretty sure what you're talking above is just a particular species of bad poetry (or, alternatively, weak manifestations of a particular tendency in poetry). As you likely know, Paul, I read a fair bit of poetry that has at least a troubled relationship with the lyric. When I come across work that seems to exist for no other reason than to illustrate some element of critical theory, I put it down and move on to something more interesting. I don't think I'm alone in this. (I should point out that I don't come across a lot of work with this particular weakness. I can think of one recent example off the top of my head.)

Paul Vermeersch said...

I can think of dozens of recent examples, Mark, and whole schools dedicated to the same.

Mark said...

Care to be more specific?

Paul Vermeersch said...

And start another commentalanche? No thank you. Though it might help if I made it clear I am not limiting my comments to Canadian content.

Mark said...

OK, so you'd prefer to leave your argument underpinned by a sweeping, dismissive and unsubstantiated generalization. Nice.

Paul Vermeersch said...

Actually, I would like to express an opinion about a kind of poetics I find unpallatable and hostile without rubbing particular people's noses in it. I have defined a certain kind of practice I'm not fond of. It is a generalization, because I'm not talking about one book, and any list of books I don't care for would be tedious, incomplete, and misleading in such a context. I have merely outlined a category, but if you really want one concrete example, I think Lynn Hejinian's work, for the most part, is pretentiously "intellectual" and fusty in just the way I described. Ditto pretty much all L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E poetry and its unreadable derivatives. I won't go on, but you no doubt get the idea.

The list also would neglect certain examples that I fear would get lumped in unjustly, like Jordan Scott's beautiful and relevant "Blert" or Dennis Lee's "UN" and "Yesno" sequence.

Wally Keeler said...

During the 1970’s I enjoyed the creative turbulence within the arts community, the atomization of art into a wide assortment of schools. It was often methodical, bloodless, spermless, totally intellectualized. It was antithetical to the lushness of Fern Hill which moves me to tears.

I have often indulged in the taunt illogical and it would be accurate to characterize it as bloodless, methodical, heartless, etc. Sometimes it reflects only wit, cleverness, arousing only a boner in the brain, not the pants.

I am not entirely dismissive of gimmicks. The Martyrology by bp contained a gimmick: Saint Reet, Saint Ove, Saint Agnant. Robert Priest’s new collection of poetry has a gimmick stated in its title Reading the Bible Backwards. In both cases, language is refresh, orthodoxies are turned on their head, dogma is eviscerated and reassembled.

For example, Priest explored meme splicing. FACE/FAITH was the richest of several meme splice poems. I suspect that Priest had a eureka moment with a single line (Let’s faith it), saw the poetential, and methodically pursued every permutation of the meme. Out of that pile of raw ore, he selected choice nuggets and configured them with his poetic intuition.

It was a gimmick, but does not deserve to be dismissed on that basis alone. Poetry exists regardless of the well-executed craft of it. Poetry exists both within and outside the confines of the architecture of sonnets, rhyme schemantras, stanza constructions, meter configurations, etc.

I do understand the preference of Paul. I also prefer Fern Hill as poetry of a higher order.

Mark said...

Well, I guess you're honest enough to say it "seems to exist for no other purpose than to illustrate some tautological tidbit of critical theory." It's really too bad though that you can't or won't test the rest of your claim against the work itself.

Paul Vermeersch said...

Mark, I'm only expressing a personal preference, not writing a manifesto. I'm talking about what I am tired of, not staking any critical turf, or telling you what or what not to read. I'm not censoring.

I don't know what you mean by "It's really too bad though that you can't or won't test the rest of your claim against the work itself." If you're suggesting that I haven't read the work, and tested my claim that I, personally, don't care for it for the reasons I stated, then that is incorrect.

Mark said...

Paul: What I'm saying is that you're justifying what appears an awful lot like a big unsubstantiated--and, I argue, patently untenable--claim (that the poetry "exist[s] for no other purpose than to illustrate some tautological tidbit of critical theory") with that itty-bitty "seems." I think it would be more honest of you to stick to saying you don't like the stuff (or even that you find it hostile) without trotting out a bunch of bluster that you're not willing to back up.

Paul Vermeersch said...

Mark, Neil Campbell made the arguement in the article on painting when he said, “Under conceptualism, human empathy was replaced with correct thought and intellection and self-pride in intellection. Spirit was taken off the agenda. Rhythm was taken off the agenda. Soul was taken off the agenda. The only thing left was the narrow spectrum of the intellectual.”

My point is that there is a fairly clearly analagous sector of the poetry world, a sector that has close ideological ties to (often abstruse) critical theory, a sector that (often) produces work that I, personally, happen to find tiresome. I think it's pretty clear what sort of work I am referring to.

Mark said...

My point is that there is a fairly clearly analagous sector of the poetry world, a sector that has close ideological ties to (often abstruse) critical theory, a sector that (often) produces work that I, personally, happen to find tiresome. I think it's pretty clear what sort of work I am referring to.

And you make the point with what amounts to innuendo. Talk about pretentiousness!

Paul, it is absolutely fine that you find the work tiresome and that you say so. There's nothing wrong with stating strong opinions. Just cool it with the pseudo-criticism.

Paul Vermeersch said...

Pseudo-criticism? I already told you I'm not writing criticism, and I wasn't pretending to. I'm simply sharing a personal opinion on my decidely informal blog. I have tried to offer some clarification when you have asked for it, but demanding, on my blog, that my informal, off-hand opinions meet your specific critical criteria is rather pushy and presumptuous, Mark.

Now, I haven't made any personal comments directed at you, so I'm disappointed that you would stoop to calling my comments pretentious when I'm only trying to answer your questions as honestly as possible without pigeon-holing anyone in particular. If and when I do write a formal essay about these thoughts, I will be sure to include multiple examples and cite my souces in MLA format. Until then, this is just my blog, not a peer-review journal. So, no hard feelings.

Mark said...

Pseudo-criticism in the sense that you're making what appear to be specific, substantial and meaningful claims, without any backing.

I'm not asking for formality. I'm suggesting you take responsibility for your words.

Paul Vermeersch said...

I take full responsibility. What kind of backing do you want?

Mark said...

Oh come on, Paul, now you're just being lazy or disingenuous. Look at what I've already written.

If we're not going to get anywhere, perhaps we should just call it quits and be friendly. I'll just have to point it out next time you say something ridiculous like that.

Paul Vermeersch said...

I'm not being disingenuous. Short of writing a detailed essay or asking me for a list of titles, what can I do to make my point any more clear?

Paul Vermeersch said...

Oh, and I'm all in favour the friendly part.

Mark said...

Best of the season to you then.

Mark

Paul Vermeersch said...

And to you and Lisa and Sam, as well.

Mark said...

Thanks, Paul.