Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Public Art vs Private Art

Apologies to my readers, regular and transient (howdy Madrid, Huntsville, Greensboro, and Columbus!), for the lack of posting. I've been job hunting and to Pittsburgh and back for a wedding. Now to address "the franchise approach to poetry promotion." Sort of.

While in Pittsburgh, I saw this piece. I said to my good friend (the one who was getting married, for the scorekeepers):

"You know, that piece is really interesting, but it's too ugly to be anywhere but in a museum."

He said "no, I don't think so -- I could see it in a building or in a park -- anywhere in public."

I responded that he was both right and said what I meant -- the piece was "public art" not "private art."

I hadn't done much (or any) thinking on the differences between public and private art up to this point -- I had only been aghast that poetry was so unread and marginalized. But when viewed within the context of public v private art, the clouds cleared a little. My complaint is looking to shape up this way:

Almost all contemporary, published poetry is private poetry. In order to keep poetry from being a dead art, we need to be writing public poetry.

So now I am reading this, this, and this. If anybody has any suggestions for other books to read, I'm all ears.

More when I get done reading,


Kirby Olson said...

I think you'd like the book by MAry Midgley called Can't We Make Moral Judgements?

G. M. Palmer said...

I'll be looking it up, Kirby -- thanks!

G. M. Palmer said...

Actually, I'm reading her Science and Poetry right now.

Love Google books.