[New-Poetry] bob's art for art's sake

[Alexander Dickow]

Bob Grumman wrote:
"I do think poetry has social functions, but so does
everything 
else--and it 
bothers me to hear poetry defended because it has
them.  One is 
invigorating 
the language, a second breaking people free from
settled outlooks.  
Among 
others."

Bob,
Agreed: no need for apologies, ironic or not. But the
above statement seems to me to illustrate my point,
after a fashion: in the sense that your variety of the
art for art's sake position assumes that no specific
"function" should be given to art for the same reasons
I suggested in re "committed" art (of which the
lefty/Puritan "moralism" you allude to is one variety,
I suppose), i.e. the limiting or stifling
prescriptions such "functions" inevitably cast (like a
pall) over artistic production. 
Here, it seems to me, are some of the various
"functions" your post suggests to me for poetry,
besides the "social" (whatever we mean by that):
-- "musical" or decorative (some would say lack of
function, call it what you like -- this is a
problematic one, I'd say)
-- critical ("breaking people free from settled
outlooks")
-- linguistic ("invigorating the language" suggests
renewal, contribution to transforming language?
Reminds me of Ponge -- would like to hear more).
-- telling the truth? something like that.

What I think is so interesting in all of these various
things is that I don't think they jive that well with
the purest articulations of art for art's sake. Which
might not exist in the first place, ultimately. In
fact, I think the notions of "Formalism" and "Art for
art's sake" may be most problematic because they
suggest homogeneity where there is a great deal of
difference (compare Gautier to Mallarme, then compare
to Valery). In short, there isn't *an* art for art's
sake -- there are many.
I agree strongly that "defending" poetry because of
its "social function" is misguided and, in the worst
cases, irritating. Such functions -- and, I would
argue, many "functions" of art -- are something like
natural or even inevitable consequences of artistic
production: the *result* of artistic production, not
its "cause" or "source". I think it's important to
distinguish the poetic from the esthetic: when we
read, we do look for function (among other things!),
like it or not -- but I don't think that should
necessarily be the case when we write. I like to think
of art for art's sake as a very useful (or even
crucial) fantasy, a liberating one from the artist's
perspective. When, I read, on the other hand, I look
for: truth, beauty, music, spirit, -- and, I might
add, specific moral perspectives, since, as a reader,
I find, say, certain fascist positions very offensive.
Would you suggest that such positions (which relate to
the "function" of a text) don't interfere or play a
part in esthetic response? And can you find me a text
that doesn't involve moral "positions" like these, and
that can be reduced to "music"?
Once again, I don't think we're disagreeing, but
personally, I enjoy debating the terms of these
questions. Thanks for the food for thought, Bob.
Amicalement,
Alex

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