[New-Poetry] Does Poetry Have A Social Function?

[Alexander Dickow]

A silly question, in my opinion. The question, "Why/to
what is art relevant?" comes up all the time, but I
think it's poorly posed. I'd ask: "To what is art NOT,
at least potentially, relevant?" The specificity of
art is its lack of specificity: "L'art n'est pas un
*domaine*", as a poet-friend puts it. It can involve
any aspect of human experience.
I seem to recall Bob Grumman piping in with slightly
disingenuous remarks in favor of an art for art's sake
perspective. Although I disagreed strongly with them
at the time (ironical as they seemed to me), there's a
way in which that perspective, I think, tends to
dovetail with the above perspective, in the final
analysis: in the sense that they both refuse or resist
precisely the kind of limiting gestures one sees among
partisans of politically committed writing, for
instance -- insistance on some narrow conception of
"relevance" or "social function". Similarly, I'd say
these thoughts go nicely with Suzanne Burn's.
Mandelstam's a good poet to quote for all kinds of
reasons, since he certainly (I think) transcends any
political/social vs. formalist divide. One might think
of Celan or Joris, too.
Cheers and happy new year to all,
Amicalement,
Alex


www.alexdickow.net/blog/
   
  les mots! ah quel désert à la fin
  merveilleux. -- Henri Droguet