I don't think one could consider Cage, MacLow or Rothenberg
"depersonalized"--they are very distinctive voices.
The use of chance is a technique--what changes it from the
abitrary or the "meer permutation" is that the elements used for the
procedures are CHOSEN by the poet/artist/performer--
rather like the Uncertainty Principle--the observer affects the
observed--
"Depersonalization" and "the death of the author"--notice these
are still "signed"--by Cage, by Foucault, etc--after all, one has to live,
and the royalty checks, grants, etc are needed--
Capitalism is not interested in the individual, but in erasing
the
individual and replacing it with the commodity of the persona, the image,
the celebrity, the "personality"--
The confusion which capitalism creates about the individual is due
in large part to the ideas of ownership and private property.
Quantity transmuted into quality--
The individual is the most troubling question capitalism has posed
for itself.
--dave baptiste chirot
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Reed Altemus wrote:
> George et al
>
> It's the Cagean "depersonalization of the artist" & chance operations
> proceedures which account for this bias. Jackson MacLow's poetry is an excellent
> example.
>
> RA
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 04/22/2000 1:12:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > << George Free wrote:
> >
> > > >If production was involved, it should be of the non-expressive,
> > > >non-intentional sort -- a la Cage, Mac Low etc.
> > >
> > > Anyone read the "Gematria" stuff that Jerome Rothenberg did? It's
> > > Flux-related, as it's process-oriented, nonexpressive (that is,
> > > expresses the language as a thing in itself, not the persona of the
> > > writer).
> >
> > AK >>
> >
> > Of course, I'm not a Fluxus poet, and I rather like seeing the persona of the
> > writer expressed. I don't fully understand the other position, but I see
> > capitalism as one big effort to wipe out the human voice and eccentric (read
> > non-commodified) persona and replace it with manufactured voices or, worse,
> > no voice except the "voice" of the commodity. When I think of all the
> > beautiful voices of the poets I've read in my life, I shiver to think of a
> > world where this kind of poetry did not exist, where poetry becomes only a
> > trick of language and not an expression of human experience or vision.
> >
> > What is the prejudice against expression? Perhaps someone can explain.
> >
> > I know people fear sentimental manipulation (which I consider poetic
> > obesity), just as I fear the poem devoid of the human touch (which I consider
> > poetic anorexia). Personally, I love the persona. Besides, underneath the
> > poem, or beside it, over it or through it, is indeed the persona that created
> > it . . . and isn't literature (and art) in general just an excuse to reveal
> > one's psychic guts and vision to a reader (futile as that desire might be)?
> > Even the desire to hide the persona reveals such. Of course, this is a big
> > world and there's always room for both. But personaly speaking . . .
> >
> > BP
>
>
