Why Poetic/Artistic Schools of Thought are Limiting

art / writing

In my previous post, I explained what I believe is a way to bring two schools of poetry together.  Why it should matter, I have no idea. Honestly, I don’t care. I mean, yes, I am amused by how both sides take it so seriously–but, in the end, it’s all a bunch of palaver and bull-hockey, et.al.

People try to direct a trend or tendency into a movement or school of thought in order to attach importance to it, and a lucrative career, but that’s bullshit too.  Unfortunately, the edifice erected by the Conceptual Poets and School of Feeling may crumble and turn to dust at any time.  Art is ephemeral. These artificial schools of thought mean absolutely nothing in the end. In fact, they are counterproductive. They don’t represent what people are really doing in the real world.

I guess, for me, when you try to do anything artistic, it’s not about logic/reason. Kenneth Goldsmith believes it is–that you can plot a scientific course (remember Marx & Engels?), with a predictable schema in hand, and arrive logically at “Art.”  It never happens that way, IMHO. You are surely influenced by particular modes and sensibilities, but the making of art is a completely arbitrary exercise. No one knows what they are doing, and if they did, nothing of importance would ever be created.

And that’s why it’s limiting and counterproductive to fall for the lie of the “dueling poetic schools.” It’s, again, good for careers, and an ego boost for well compensated rhetoricians in the Ivory Tower, but for burnouts like me, it leaves me cold–and bored. I’m sure Dick Higgins would approve.

NEXT: WHY INTERMEDIA IS A WAY OUT OF THE “SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT” MODEL.

 

1 Comment

  1. Pingback: A Hybrid Poetics – Wanton Text Blog

Comments are closed.