Response to the Readings on Concrete Poetry & Whatnot

...

In the assigned readings, I was most struck by Guy Debord’s argument for experimentation with the look of words on the page and the visual possibilities of poetry. The first sentence of the Situationist International piece recalls strongly di Prima’s poem from a few weeks ago: “The problem of language is at the heart of all struggles between the forces striving to abolish present alienation and those struggling to maintain it; it is inseparable from the entire terrain of those struggles.” So, here we have this idea returning of all wars being subsumed in one large struggle, a struggle that di Prima deems “the war against the imagination,” which could be adequately defined by Debord’s description in this piece. I have felt for a time that literature and history are two antithetical dimensions of the same thing, that literature, if done well, should be a people’s history, or what Debord describes as a “poetry of history” versus a “history of poetry,” which is the key to the liberation and realization of every individual and everyday life. Adrienne Rich has written and spoken extensively about the fall of poets from positions as cultural ambassadors, politically important thinkers and leaders, and the marginalization of poetry as an art form to be appreciated but contained in award ceremonies and book signings. As I read about poetry being the catalyst for revolution, I was immediately reminded of Pablo Neruda’s “I Explain a Few Things,” and times when poets were ambassadors and had central roles in the cultural dialogue of their time. Now poets’ only political intersections seem to consist of reading at presidential inaugurations and being awarded the National Medal of the Arts (a medal which Adrienne Rich was offered and refused, saying: “I could not accept such an award from President Clinton or this White House because the very meaning of art, as I understand it, is incompatible with the cynical politics of this administration. [Art] means nothing if it simply decorates the dinner table of the power which holds it hostage.”)

...

I especially enjoyed “A Manifesto for Fluxus” by George Maciunas for this very reason. It gets to the core of what art needs to be/do/espouse/inspire/show to not become a tool of the dominant culture or an entertaining, engaging, highly-priced, snobbish and fence walking sideshow for people who can afford such luxuries (and when I say fence walking I mean art that insists on being apolitical and refuses any kind of grounding in a political world. Making apolitical art is a choice, and is thus a political decision, like not voting.) He places emphasis on eliminating barriers into art and creativity, espouses what Alice Walker might call a “living creativity” (the sort of artistic streak that results in fabulous gardens blossoming out of fire escapes, long and rich histories of hair braiding, when people are barred in one or more ways from utilizing their creative energy in a traditional academic form) or what Diane di Prima might call “a poetics” that is variable from person to person but impossible to lack.

...

I am interested in something:

1. Di Prima says that everyone has a poetics and that we all have a stake in the war against the imagination;

2. Maso says that writers need to be conscious of how following old forms might be impeding their true expression of themselves and ponders how breaking the old forms and rules could enable writers to more accurately and effectively use language but she is speaking at a conference of specifically LGBTQ writers , and when she uses the term “we” it sounds less collective than di Prima, but possibly because she is addressing a specific community that she is presumably also a member of;

3. Debord says that we must transition from a history of poetry to a poetry of history to liberate everyday life and realize/recognize the individual life. This seems to place the importance of recording this on everyone again, like di Prima, extending “poetics” to everyone;

and 4. Maciunas demands the creation of a “non art reality to be grasped by all peoples” and the “fusion of cultural, social & political revolutionaries.”

So, Maso’s ‘we’ stands out to me as being the most limited. She uses ‘we’ repeatedly, and as I voiced in class previously, I understood her ‘we’ to correspond with people on the margins of society, the people who have the least stake in following forms and codes and rules that could imply a dominant value system that is not to the benefit of themselves or their communities. Though she is speaking at a conference of specifically queer writers, I still imagine this ‘we’ as encompassing every oppressed group. Really, there are relatively few people who benefit from what Debord categorizes as the present alienation. And the majority of people who do stand to benefit from the present arrangement or are convinced they could, probably have a huge, crushing realization/karmic ass-kicking coming to them at some point. Thus, would one of the main projects for people who are already breaking the rules and turning literary tricks be making this realization recognizable to the people who suffer without recognizing or naming or having a framework in which to think about the present alienation and how it limits themSELVES, their stories, their syntax?

...