Patti, you obviously have a readership and audience outside the academy. That’s incredible. I don’t. Simple as that. It’s not my choice, but instead happens to be where the reception of my work takes place. I don’t receive any awards or honors from the academy for my work; I’ve never been to the sort of “Pigpen” ceremonies you talk about. Rather, I exist only because my books are studied and written about there. So, I’m grateful for that: if it wasn’t for the academy’s reception, I’d have no reception at all.
Reader Brian sez:
Do you actually believe the academy controls poetry in America?
Nope. I don’t. I know that there are many scenes out there that thrive outside the academy. However, my scene isn’t one of them.
Staffer Michael sez:
As thousands of students / instructors each year both enter and leave the academy, what prevents them from maintaining an academy-like relationship to your work once they are no longer an “official” part of the academy?
Your comment reminds me of a John Cage story. Cage said that his audience was perpetually students, reason being that students grow up, leave the academy to enter the real world, the result being that, consumed with practical matters, they drift from art. In my experience, I’ve found Cage’s take on this to be a pretty good explanation of why my work stays in the academy.
Kenny,
Posted By: Bachelardette on May 22, 2007 at 4:27 pmAfter initially misunderstanding Patricia Smith, I realize she had a point: is it really fair to appropriate the words “experimental” and “innovative” as codes referring specifically to work derived from the Modernist tradition? I know lots of us do it for lack of an umbrella term a la “Language;” “emergent” and “post-avant” have been posited, etc. But I think, thanks to Patricia, I’ll stick to Modernist. And if it sounds a little retro, Selavy.
Ange
Report this comment