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,
M
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Public Art vs Private Art
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think you'd like the book by MAry Midgley called Can't We Make Moral Judgements?
I'll be looking it up, Kirby -- thanks!
Actually, I'm reading her Science and Poetry right now.
Love Google books.
Post a Comment