Subject: BK Stefans on Standard Schaefer
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 08:13:45 -0400 (EDT)
> > Dear Standard, > > I think you are doing yourself and your ideas a tremendous disservice by > focusing on this issue of careerism which your statements have not > demonstrated to be a very well-considered, historically-conscious position. > It seems to me quite obvious, for example, that very few of the Language > poets had any idea that their ideas would obtain for them the degree of > academic acceptance that they have, in the past decade, received, and if > you would like to argue this point, I would ask you to return to the > numerous staple-bound, yellowing and otherwise low-tech and low-print-run > publications that were circulating in the 70s and 80s when they were first > looking at each other's poetry and seeing a common set of interests > developing, and cite those instances where you think 1) any of the those > poets thought they were writing in a style that would eventually become > something like the norm in academic studies, or maybe how their writing > styles and ideas actually gelled with what was happening in academic > studies at the time, 2) where you think that this "careerism" seriously or > even moderately compromised the general goal, aura or collective effort at > investigation (as opposed to exploitation) that is, I think, one of the > nobler aims of a group effort in poetics, the uncovering of lost ideas or > perhaps the refocusing or "make it new" of dilapidated ones, 3) how many of > the poets who were writing at this time who are not of the "language > school" were actually resisting assimilation into what, to you apparently, > was a very obvious upward track into the academe, which is to say, would a > poet working in primarily "speech based" poetics at the time (some of whom > were professors) be considered resistant to an obvious "spectre haunting > America poetry" or were they working in a tradition which, to some, had > itself run its course and was not likely to produce anything more > interesting without a degree of revamping. > > In terms of this last point, I would relate that in talking to several New > York poets who were around at the time and who were not part of the > "language" thing -- indeed, being excluded from the publication of that > name and being quite miffed by this fact -- still are far more generous to > what happened with the magazine and the "movement" than many of the poets > of my age or slightly younger, understanding that at a basic level what > those people were up to was something quite different. Which is to say, > these poets who were there at the time were well aware of these several > factors that I allude to above, that it was really a "grassroots" kind of > thing that didn't have a Marjorie Perloff or Hank Lazar (the mile-long > shelf of critics raising the LangPos to the lofty height of canonicity) to > give it the sort of guarantee that you seem to be believe -- again, I > challenge you to find where this assurance is -- was there to push on their > efforts. There was very little money circulating in that community for > publications of any nature, that the lifestyles of these poets were often > at least as radically "outside" as the more standard boho lifestyle of a > Lower East Side poet (and they mostly lived in the Lower East Side, > anyway), blah blah blah. Before "language," all of these poets more or > less did the same thing, went to see music, art, read at St. Mark's and > went to the readings, commented, complained, wondered if Olson was what he > was cracked up to be, etc. (I would note that despite what people think of > the New York poetry scene, the crowds mix here quite a bit and continue to > do so, the real lines being present only in the minds of those who seem to > need them to get by.) > > I would suggest, if we want to talk about the "co-opting of the arts by > institutions," that your own method of publishing your magazine plays more > into the basic method of a fast-track to institutionalization than the > publishing method of the Language poets, which, again, was very cheap, > community-based, spontaneous, hard to find "closure" in, etc. A new issue > of Rhizome -- and I am not criticizing you for publishing it, I'm just > asking you to put it's parameters under the "socratic light" in a way that > I would ask you to put the LangPos publications under the same light, and > tell me which is more "radical" -- arrives on my doorstep from an anonymous > publisher to whom I had sent a check in much the same way that Art in > America would (were I to subscribe to it) or October, etc. > > Here are some quotes from your post and responses: > > "What I was trying to contend in my essay is that "radical artifice" and > "indeterminacy" often coincide with a poetic practice that looks an awful > lot like a struggle between academics and their discursive efforts to > control the determination of good poetry." > > -- You fail to establish this point in your essay, but as I don't have this > with me I can't argue with that text. But I would like to ask where you > find Charles Bernstein, for instance, talking about "good poetry," in those > very terms since you obviously are very happy with taking other terms of > his out of context. I would also like to argue that Charles would not make > the mistake that you are making in your comments here, as he goes to great > lengths to establish any sort of new terminology with a wealth of often > very rich material, whether it be Veronica Forrest-Thomson (whom I would > suggest you read before deciding that "radical artifice" and "emotion" are > as incompatible as you state) to Langston Hughes. This is an effort to > show exactly what he is talking about "looks like." You might want to > illustrate, also, which "struggle" you are talking about, perhaps a lengthy > quote from one such struggle, and compare this to, say, one of these poems > you are talking about. As a final point, I would add that a comparison > with Pound's "discursive efforts to control the determination of good > poetry" probably resembled the mainstream and academic effort of his time > to make these very same value judgments, though in form rather than in > content or even style of rhetoric, than Charles' do his own mainstream > contemporaries. > > "In concrete terms, this means that we who believe that radical politics is > at least possible cannot mistake the act of simply writing vague, > fragmented, ambiguous etc. poems with the changing of the business of > poetry." > > -- Yes, you cannot, but there are many other mistakes that can be made, > such as that of an emotionalism unmodified by recourse to the data at hand. > > "The business of poetry is all the various devices, contraptions which do > the actually judging of poetry and that lead to a belief that the only > important writers are those who are being written on (cf. the writers of > dissertations)." > > -- One thing I would mention, again looking at this Pound / Bernstein > dichotomy, is that Bernstein has struggled to come up with a critical > apparatus with which to gauge the "quality" of poetry which is > decentralized, open to anomaly, not focused on the racial or gender make-up > of the group with which he is most associated, non-canonical in the sense > that many of the poets he writes about were not "universal" writers in the > sense of Goethe or, closer to home, Frost, etc. While there are many ways > to argue with his essays -- and I have several friends whom you would > consider "stooges" (I think you use this word twice in your essay) of the > Language Poets who have taken essays such as "Poetics of the Americas" to > task -- the essential contours of the project are very admirable and > deserve very close attention, and the method, which relies on incredible > amounts of research, thought as to the context in which the statements will > appear, etc. not to mention focusing _on_ that context, which indeed is > often an academic context -- who has been a more strong and legitimate > critic of the practices of the academy (which, despite our coolness in > pride in being "non-academic" and "street-wise" is a major cultural > institution which, unless you want to throw it out completely, is worth > attempting to review and rebuild) than Charles Bernstein? I'm sure there > are dozens of people who are willing to claim that it's "ruining poetry," > blah blah, and that Charles is just another cog, but there has been a > subtle shift in the attentions of his essays that has been toward a > consideration of that very institution to which he belongs -- a very > pointed, angry, to many annoying, specific, meaningful, researched, > criticism which, if anything, illustrates the integrity of his project. > That is, he is not in denial that he is part of an institution of which he > is highly critical, and in fact may find abhorrent (though I shouldn't > advertise this point, he would be the first one to dissuade you from > attending the Buffalo program if he didn't think it was worth your time). > Well, I won't go on here, unless this really bugs you. > > "What I commend Jeff Clark for in my essay applies to Garrett Caples, > Martin Corless Smith, Cathy Wagner, Tracy > Grinnel, Emily Grossman, Brian Lucas and other "non-allied" poets." > > -- They won't be much longer, if you or anyone else decides to group them > that way. The "Non-allied Poets" will be the subject of Marjorie Perloff > 2010's famous book, the "Poetics of the Oops Decentralized." > > "I commend these poets' refusal to use theory as a way of justifying their > own work as either socially relevant or "radical" or even "progressive" or > even necessary. I also commend them for not falling into the (fake) > hermeticism > of the mainstream. A refusal to play poetry for tenure, promotion, etc. may > be the most politically effective gesture yet because as along as poetry > resembles business, some way to join the firm or succeed in school, we > cannot have > "radical" poetries." > > -- But the turn has to be made to suggest how these poetries are "radical" > apart from their apparent break with the fake, in your terms, radicalism of > the previous generation. In other words, let's find positive terms rather > than negative ones, and the "challenge round" could be: let's find positive > terms for these poets' poetics without being Ezra Pound, i.e. finding a > tradition for them to be in the line of defending. I don't find anything > radical about the poetries of these writers, but I am more than willing to > be convinced that they are "radical" -- but then again, they certainly > don't have to be, either, for me to like them, as I read all kinds of stuff > that's politically luke-warm and like it bundles. Consequently, it's very > depressing to me to think that this is the most "politically effective > gesture yet" since, well, that's a pretty narrow sense of politics. I > wouldn't be able to explain _that_ to my mother. > > "I commend their humility and I believe that it will go along way farther > to counteracting the self-aggrandizing, self-promotional careerist > tendencies that have arisen out of an american poetic-theoretical nexus > associated with "collapsed subjectivity". The decentered poem does > nothing, but when it is consecrated by a host of Hank Lazers, > Marjorie Perloffs, and so forth a very real subjectivitiy is made: the > celebrity poet." > > -- I'm sure they are very nice people, and there are, without a doubt, a > few "self-aggrandizing" poets of the Language ilk whose purported interests > in collectivity and objective, informed consideration of cultural politics, > etc., runs counter to the obviously (not necessarily masculinist but > certainly mostly) pride in being as learned as they are, and being able to > muscle through the most abstract conversation about issues that, in the > end, are pretty dead as soon as they hit air. I could tell you a few > stories. But there just aren't nearly as many as statements like the above > would suggest, and, again, I am not sure why we choose to criticize poets > who have done the kind of reading that their ideas deserve in order to make > them fuller, more informed, etc. As Pound himself would write, do we > commend a musician for bragging that he/she does not know how to play > Mozart? (Yes, Paul McCartney never took singing lessons, hurrah.) It's > also a terrible reduction, again, to think that "collapsed subjectivity" > has been the primary modus-operandi of the recent American poetics, > especially since you suggest, above, that "radical artifice" is the main > axis point -- you like to work in scare quotes, with interchangeable > targets. I think many of us are not nearly as oppressed by the catch > phrases. > > "One of the most important points Perloff makes in POETICS OF > INDETERIMINACY is, if I recall, in the chapter on Stein where she discusses > the difference between indeterminacy and ambiguity. There her formalism is > at its finest: she shows in detail what made Stein great and what her > imitators were not too clear about." > > -- Please elaborate on this binary. Despite what you might think, I agree > with you that cartloads of writing has been produced out of a very vague, > un-aesthetic (I mean non-self critical in terms of whether the art at hand > is really "working") sense of praxis, and that, in bulk, it is likely to > turn off anyone to what we call "postmodern" or even contemporary poetry. > On the other hand, when I approach this work and my teeth start to gnash, I > have that little line of Bob Dylan's floating around in the back of my head > -- and if I could sing it the way he does right here I would -- "Don't > criticize what you don't understand." And so I try to understand, and > gnash later. This language of "imitators" is very Poundian, but so again I > ask you to look at these ideas -- innovation, imitation, originality, etc. > -- divorced from your obvious aesthetic biases and see if they really work, > or are even necessary. "Imitation" has a certain "radical" (a word I > rarely use, actually) potential which, well, I am investigating. > > "It is in an interesting time to consider whether or not a writer should > possess a strong ego and whether or not the language school's post-humanism > was every anything but the proliferation of the ego by new means, in new > modes." > > -- This is any easy one to answer: yes. Of course, but from there, let's > see what these particular egos have managed to produce, what are the > contours of the work, how to they operate socially, when and where has the > ego been sacrificed for something that could be called (for lack of a > better word) "constructivist," how is the ego played off of this > construction, is it really as closed and negating an ego as we at first > feel, is it charmless and sterile, etc. > > I think that your essay, and this particular post, are part of a trend that > I sense very strongly write now in poets who are, say, generally within my > age range, some older some younger (so that would be mid-twenties to > mid-thirties) who are prone to making very over-arching, "emotional" (most > more often hysterical) statements about how the Language Poets have > completely subtracted a certain variable -- "emotion" -- from the poetic > equation in America. I would suggest two quick things to read, Max Weber's > Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism for an idea of where "our" > sense of emotion has gone -- it's gone quite far, but far away, I think, > such that now we don't really know how rich "emotion" can be, or how > complicated -- but also Charles' exchange with Louis Simpson in one of > those books that Lazar published a while back, an exchange that reappears, > I think, in the Politics of Poetic Form, in which his ideas on "emotion" > are most misunderstood and most strongly stated. I certainly don't think > it's wrong to take CB up on his ideas -- that's what they're there for, in > fact, and few welcome strong criticism of his ideas like he does -- but the > "ambiguous, not too clear" criticism the likes of which appear in your > essay are none to0 productive. > > Well, I could go on, but, luckily perhaps, am out of time. > > Sincerely, > Brian >
Document URL: http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/88/stefans-institutionalization.html
Last modified: Wednesday, 18-Jul-2007 16:28:47 EDT