Thursday, November 13, 2008


One problem with a lot of the post-Obama or even pre-Obama talk is the idea that poetry can/should accomplish some kind of utopian progress; that poetry should be ethical/progressive. This is just another way of trying to controll the pleasure; hitch it to an ethical stance.

See the most recent Action, Yes and the struggle between the very "good" and "ethical" socialist cultural establishment (ie controllers) and Bruno K Oijers grotesque excess. Stop trying to be so good.

No to progress.


Blogger Rauan Klassnik said...

this is why, in one word, people should read poetry.

at a party one rainy summer night someone told me that the reason he returns to literature is "ideology."
Ok, fair enough. (????)

I return to Catullus and others I love (or hate even) for pleasure and personality.

9:01 AM  
Blogger Jordan said...

Pleasure: if you have to ask, you can't afford it.

9:53 AM  
Blogger Amish Trivedi said...

Poetry is disgusting, Johannes. Poetry will now and forever be unable to achieve anything but being put on paper or online. It's unethical and regressive.

2:05 PM  
Blogger Max said...

Poets aren't anything. Poetry isn't anything. What more is there to say?

7:19 PM  
Blogger Archambeau said...

Yeah. There's a very utilitarian streak to the kind of thinking that seeks to justify art in terms of politics: an anxious desire to be useful that, in the end, has more in common with bourgeois notions of progress, instrumental reason, and the like than one might think.

Yes to no to progress!

Yes to Action Yes!

8:51 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home