Comments on: The Digerati Strike Back http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/ Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:40:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Gary B. Fitzgerald http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26115 Gary B. Fitzgerald Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:47:59 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26115 Man...you guys can sure shovel it on. Man…you guys can sure shovel it on.
Report this comment

]]> By: Henry Gould http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26111 Henry Gould Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:44:13 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26111 & you sound so much like a garden-variety snide poet! Have you ever lifted anything heavier than an hors-d'oeuvres toothpick? & you sound so much like a garden-variety snide poet! Have you ever lifted anything heavier than an hors-d’oeuvres toothpick?
Report this comment

]]> By: Matt http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26108 Matt Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:55:17 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26108 "I like shovels for shoveling" Good for you! You sound like a regular Joe Six-Plumber. Are you running for president? “I like shovels for shoveling”

Good for you! You sound like a regular Joe Six-Plumber. Are you running for president?
Report this comment

]]> By: john http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26103 john Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:13:26 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26103 Henry -- leave aside aesthetics for a moment, and think about ka-ching ka-ching -- investment, yeah yeah yeah. A Duchamp signature is worth a *lot* more than a James ppbk. Bringing aesthetics back -- yes, there's no arguing with one's individual response. Like the old folks say, it's all good. "Duchamp" would be an *excellent* brand name for a fashion line, on the borderline between fashion and anti-fashion; the Duchamp designers would take any found clothing -- Sears clothing, say, take off the labels, put new "Duchamp" labels on, and go to town! Henry — leave aside aesthetics for a moment, and think about ka-ching ka-ching — investment, yeah yeah yeah. A Duchamp signature is worth a *lot* more than a James ppbk.

Bringing aesthetics back — yes, there’s no arguing with one’s individual response. Like the old folks say, it’s all good.

“Duchamp” would be an *excellent* brand name for a fashion line, on the borderline between fashion and anti-fashion; the Duchamp designers would take any found clothing — Sears clothing, say, take off the labels, put new “Duchamp” labels on, and go to town!
Report this comment

]]> By: Henry Gould http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26101 Henry Gould Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:29:21 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26101 Yeah? But it's a shovel. Did Duchamp do any scrimshaw along the handle? I sincerely doubt it. I like shovels for shoveling; that's a wonderful thing. i have shoveled a great deal in my life, with a regular shovel. If I had to choose between Duchamp's shovel (& all the baloney shoveled around & about it) or one worn-out cheap waterlogged crumbling paperback by Henry James or [name yr poet]... now there's an objet d'art. Yeah? But it’s a shovel. Did Duchamp do any scrimshaw along the handle? I sincerely doubt it.

I like shovels for shoveling; that’s a wonderful thing. i have shoveled a great deal in my life, with a regular shovel.

If I had to choose between Duchamp’s shovel (& all the baloney shoveled around & about it) or one worn-out cheap waterlogged crumbling paperback by Henry James or [name yr poet]… now there’s an objet d’art.
Report this comment

]]> By: Henry Gould http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26099 Henry Gould Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:21:06 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26099 So kindly Sir Uncle Kentameter abandones the field once more, with his sweet abject workingman's solidarity tail tucked between his legs... Henry snarling in his quatrain cage...& as silence continues to reign on high, in the exalted American Fox's lair of Professional-Conceptual Hobnobbery... Happy Halloween! So kindly Sir Uncle Kentameter abandones the field once more, with his sweet abject workingman’s solidarity tail tucked between his legs… Henry snarling in his quatrain cage…& as silence continues to reign on high, in the exalted American Fox’s lair of Professional-Conceptual Hobnobbery…

Happy Halloween!
Report this comment

]]> By: john http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26097 john Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:10:39 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26097 Duchamp's shovel *is* original -- and very Romanticist in its elevation of the individual artist's signature to being the guarantor of art. One might argue that Duchamp's move critiques the Romantic fetishization of the individual's signature, but the museums, Sherrie Levine (in practice if not in theory), and the art historians agree with my take on it. When I was a teenager at the Philly Museum (largest repository of Duchampiana), reading the card describing how Duchamp enjoyed spinning the bicycle wheel that he had mounted on a stool, I gave the wheel a spin. I got in trouble. Duchamp’s shovel *is* original — and very Romanticist in its elevation of the individual artist’s signature to being the guarantor of art. One might argue that Duchamp’s move critiques the Romantic fetishization of the individual’s signature, but the museums, Sherrie Levine (in practice if not in theory), and the art historians agree with my take on it.

When I was a teenager at the Philly Museum (largest repository of Duchampiana), reading the card describing how Duchamp enjoyed spinning the bicycle wheel that he had mounted on a stool, I gave the wheel a spin.

I got in trouble.
Report this comment

]]> By: Kent Johnson http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26096 Kent Johnson Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:09:13 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26096 So let me ask once more to U.S. poetry's leading advocate of literary "theft," and then I'm out: Why not post the PDF of "A" on UbuWeb? So let me ask once more to U.S. poetry’s leading advocate of literary “theft,” and then I’m out:

Why not post the PDF of “A” on UbuWeb?
Report this comment

]]> By: Henry Gould http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26093 Henry Gould Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:05:40 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26093 Thanks for the link, Kent. To replicate myself : I'm not all that impressed by Duchamp's shovel. Maybe it's just me. Thanks for the link, Kent. To replicate myself : I’m not all that impressed by Duchamp’s shovel. Maybe it’s just me.
Report this comment

]]> By: Henry Gould http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26092 Henry Gould Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:03:41 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26092 On the necessity for invention, and originality as its expression - full disclosure : my father is a (semi)retired patent attorney. My brothers & I flew a prototype of the frisbee (from Whammo! Corp., one of my father's clients) in the back yard, about 50 yrs ago. On the necessity for invention, and originality as its expression – full disclosure : my father is a (semi)retired patent attorney.

My brothers & I flew a prototype of the frisbee (from Whammo! Corp., one of my father’s clients) in the back yard, about 50 yrs ago.
Report this comment

]]> By: Kent Johnson http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26091 Kent Johnson Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:00:46 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26091 Here you go, Henry, on the topic: http://jacketmagazine.com/32/k-kent.shtml Kent Here you go, Henry, on the topic:

http://jacketmagazine.com/32/k-kent.shtml

Kent
Report this comment

]]> By: Kent Johnson http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26090 Kent Johnson Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:55:57 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26090 >I, for one, don’t consider Duchamp’s shovel very impressive as a work of art. It’s a conceptual stunt, not a new (formal, material) embodiment of a new idea...& so out of all these eras on either side of Romantic individualism, you can’t give me an example of a strong work of art which is not original? Sorry Kent – pretty lame on your part. Duchamp's shovel. >I, for one, don’t consider Duchamp’s shovel very impressive as a work of art. It’s a conceptual stunt, not a new (formal, material) embodiment of a new idea…& so out of all these eras on either side of Romantic individualism, you can’t give me an example of a strong work of art which is not original? Sorry Kent – pretty lame on your part.

Duchamp’s shovel.
Report this comment

]]> By: Henry Gould http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26089 Henry Gould Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:48:17 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26089 Changing the terms? Here's what I said, a few inches to the north from here : "Originality is the sign of something distinct, unique, and new. This originality of invention, which undergirds the new shape, figure or structure displayed in an authentic work of art, is what is primarily responsible, is the driving motor, for invigorating & bringing to life ALL the materials out of which the work is made (in the case of poetry, words, speech)." I, for one, don't consider Duchamp's shovel very impressive as a work of art. It's a conceptual stunt, not a new (formal, material) embodiment of a new idea. & so out of all these eras on either side of Romantic individualism, you can't give me an example of a strong work of art which is not original? Sorry Kent - pretty lame on your part. Changing the terms? Here’s what I said, a few inches to the north from here :

“Originality is the sign of something distinct, unique, and new. This originality of invention, which undergirds the new shape, figure or structure displayed in an authentic work of art, is what is primarily responsible, is the driving motor, for invigorating & bringing to life ALL the materials out of which the work is made (in the case of poetry, words, speech).”

I, for one, don’t consider Duchamp’s shovel very impressive as a work of art. It’s a conceptual stunt, not a new (formal, material) embodiment of a new idea.

& so out of all these eras on either side of Romantic individualism, you can’t give me an example of a strong work of art which is not original? Sorry Kent – pretty lame on your part.
Report this comment

]]> By: Kent Johnson http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26088 Kent Johnson Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:34:55 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26088 Henry, now you're changing the terms! Don't be a sophist. Arguing for "new things" in poetry, new things that are "remade from source materials," is very different from arguing for the poet's individual, vatic "originality" as some kind of sacred first principle. In fact, the idea that poetry is defined by the "remaking of source materials into a new thing" is so catch-all as to be absurd. Duchamp's shovel was a "new thing." But its relation to the concept of originality, as you are framing the notion, is pretty problematic to say the least. As to your challenge that I name different attitudes towards "originality," as these manifest in other cultures and times (you seem to feel there is nothing of the sort, that Romantic ontology is all we ever had), well, what can I say? I don't know... Read the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry? Henry, now you’re changing the terms! Don’t be a sophist. Arguing for “new things” in poetry, new things that are “remade from source materials,” is very different from arguing for the poet’s individual, vatic “originality” as some kind of sacred first principle. In fact, the idea that poetry is defined by the “remaking of source materials into a new thing” is so catch-all as to be absurd.

Duchamp’s shovel was a “new thing.” But its relation to the concept of originality, as you are framing the notion, is pretty problematic to say the least.

As to your challenge that I name different attitudes towards “originality,” as these manifest in other cultures and times (you seem to feel there is nothing of the sort, that Romantic ontology is all we ever had), well, what can I say? I don’t know… Read the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry?
Report this comment

]]> By: john http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26085 john Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:07:14 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26085 I agree with Henry. Originality -- newness -- is key. Romanticism implies an ideology of artist-over-art, of individualism and artistic autonomy, and, while we're still very much in an era of Romantic individualism, I can think of many substantial works in which the individual style of the artist is not paramount, and yet the artwork is powerful and original, if only in its original context. Cathedral gargoyles and individual frames of Disney cartoons exhibit terrific skill and craftspersonship but typically try to efface individuality of the artist's style, while contributing to a unique whole made by a collective. Our Romantic ideology is so anxious about this that our culture invented the idea of the auteur in order to create a heroic film artist on which we could project our Romantic fantasies, but films remain a fantastically (usually corporate) collective art form. Sherrie-Levine-esque moves are hyper-Romantic, all about the uniqueness of the artist's insight, or idea; and even if they're not-very-interesting spins on a Duchampian idea, they aspire to Romantic genius. Copyright law is over-onerous. Music written 100 years ago by Charles Ives, who died more than 55 years ago, is still under copyright. That's crazy. I agree with Henry. Originality — newness — is key. Romanticism implies an ideology of artist-over-art, of individualism and artistic autonomy, and, while we’re still very much in an era of Romantic individualism, I can think of many substantial works in which the individual style of the artist is not paramount, and yet the artwork is powerful and original, if only in its original context. Cathedral gargoyles and individual frames of Disney cartoons exhibit terrific skill and craftspersonship but typically try to efface individuality of the artist’s style, while contributing to a unique whole made by a collective. Our Romantic ideology is so anxious about this that our culture invented the idea of the auteur in order to create a heroic film artist on which we could project our Romantic fantasies, but films remain a fantastically (usually corporate) collective art form.

Sherrie-Levine-esque moves are hyper-Romantic, all about the uniqueness of the artist’s insight, or idea; and even if they’re not-very-interesting spins on a Duchampian idea, they aspire to Romantic genius.

Copyright law is over-onerous. Music written 100 years ago by Charles Ives, who died more than 55 years ago, is still under copyright. That’s crazy.
Report this comment

]]> By: Henry Gould http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26082 Henry Gould Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:12:18 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26082 I missed that, Gary, but I'll gladly withdraw my copyright claim to that term, for what it's worth, in your favor. I'll have my people call your people. I missed that, Gary, but I’ll gladly withdraw my copyright claim to that term, for what it’s worth, in your favor. I’ll have my people call your people.
Report this comment

]]> By: Henry Gould http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26081 Henry Gould Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:04:03 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26081 Kent, maybe you could provide an example of some substantial poetry from any era, which is not original, which does not remake its sources into a distinctly new thing. Kent, maybe you could provide an example of some substantial poetry from any era, which is not original, which does not remake its sources into a distinctly new thing.
Report this comment

]]> By: Henry Gould http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26080 Henry Gould Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:59:51 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26080 Colin, "anti-poetic", yes, has been a term used in various ways, positive & negative... maybe the most familiar positive example is Nicanor Parra (though I wonder if he would call his trademark "anti-poetry", anti-poetic). I'm using it in a particular way here. As to your 2nd point : yes, on occasion real poets writing real poetry will parody, echo, maybe even, in unusual cases, "replicate", as you suggest. Much authentic & great poetry is in dialogue & sometimes close revision of what has gone before. I see this as different from the programmatic rejection (by the "Conceptualists" & their ilk) of the compositional processes of invention & design which result in actual new poetry. Colin,
“anti-poetic”, yes, has been a term used in various ways, positive & negative… maybe the most familiar positive example is Nicanor Parra (though I wonder if he would call his trademark “anti-poetry”, anti-poetic). I’m using it in a particular way here.

As to your 2nd point : yes, on occasion real poets writing real poetry will parody, echo, maybe even, in unusual cases, “replicate”, as you suggest. Much authentic & great poetry is in dialogue & sometimes close revision of what has gone before.

I see this as different from the programmatic rejection (by the “Conceptualists” & their ilk) of the compositional processes of invention & design which result in actual new poetry.
Report this comment

]]> By: Don Share http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26078 Don Share Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:52:01 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26078 Some possibly related reading, about trying to quote from James Joyce: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/september28/shloss-joyce-settlement-092809.html Some possibly related reading, about trying to quote from James Joyce:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/september28/shloss-joyce-settlement-092809.html
Report this comment

]]> By: Kent Johnson http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26077 Kent Johnson Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:31:12 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26077 by the way, Colin, thanks for that link. Fascinating. Didn't know that case. The exception that makes the rule? by the way, Colin, thanks for that link. Fascinating. Didn’t know that case.

The exception that makes the rule?
Report this comment

]]> By: Colin Ward http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26076 Colin Ward Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:23:00 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26076 Henry, <B> it all strikes me as especially & consciously ANTI-poetic. </B> FWIW, the first time I encountered the term "antipoetric" it described Michael Ondaatje's famous <a HREF="http://farawaysoclose.wordpress.com/2005/07/31/sweet-like-a-crow/" rel="nofollow">"Sweet like a Crow".</A> The term wasn't being used as a pejorative. <B> It is diametrically opposed to the idea that, in the sphere of art, originality is inherent & necessary. </B> Fascinating. There is, of course, the cliché collage, typically <a HREF="http://www.firesides.ca/eva.htm" rel="nofollow">(but not exclusively)</A> employed with humourous intent. Also FWIW, Dutch poet Martijn Benders once replicated an entire poem verbatim, changing only its title, to show the importance of context. -o- Henry,

it all strikes me as especially & consciously ANTI-poetic.

FWIW, the first time I encountered the term “antipoetric” it described Michael Ondaatje’s famous “Sweet like a Crow”. The term wasn’t being used as a pejorative.

It is diametrically opposed to the idea that, in the sphere of art, originality is inherent & necessary.

Fascinating. There is, of course, the cliché collage, typically (but not exclusively) employed with humourous intent.

Also FWIW, Dutch poet Martijn Benders once replicated an entire poem verbatim, changing only its title, to show the importance of context.

-o-
Report this comment

]]> By: Kent Johnson http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26074 Kent Johnson Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:08:58 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26074 >it all strikes me as especially & consciously ANTI-poetic. It is diametrically opposed to the idea that, in the sphere of art, originality is inherent & necessary. Henry, sorry, but those notions/assumptions in your last comment are ones largely emerging out of the Romantic period (which still obviously impacts our own-- "We're all still Romantics," as Harold Bloom's long claimed). But there are whole eras of poetry, in our own and in various other cultures, where the notion of "originality" is in no way "inherent or necessary," or where it's had profoundly different meanings than it's had in the West over the last couple centuries. There are whole traditions, in fact, that near outright reject Romantic notions of artistic autonomy. I'm surprised, frankly, that you're making this fairly obvious error. Not that this has much to do with the matter of our own Conceptualist "moment"... >it all strikes me as especially & consciously ANTI-poetic. It is diametrically opposed to the idea that, in the sphere of art, originality is inherent & necessary.

Henry, sorry, but those notions/assumptions in your last comment are ones largely emerging out of the Romantic period (which still obviously impacts our own– “We’re all still Romantics,” as Harold Bloom’s long claimed).

But there are whole eras of poetry, in our own and in various other cultures, where the notion of “originality” is in no way “inherent or necessary,” or where it’s had profoundly different meanings than it’s had in the West over the last couple centuries. There are whole traditions, in fact, that near outright reject Romantic notions of artistic autonomy. I’m surprised, frankly, that you’re making this fairly obvious error.

Not that this has much to do with the matter of our own Conceptualist “moment”…
Report this comment

]]> By: Gary B. Fitzgerald http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26073 Gary B. Fitzgerald Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:28:19 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26073 ? ?
Report this comment

]]> By: Gary B. Fitzgerald http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26072 Gary B. Fitzgerald Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:22:32 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26072 Actually, I believe I accurately described this phenomenon on digital emunction some time back: antipoetry. http://www.digitalemunction.com/2009/10/01/charles-the-first/ Are you trying to steal my idea, Henry Actually, I believe I accurately described this phenomenon on digital emunction some time back: antipoetry.

http://www.digitalemunction.com/2009/10/01/charles-the-first/

Are you trying to steal my idea, Henry
Report this comment

]]> By: Henry Gould http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26070 Henry Gould Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:03:13 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26070 These celebrated rip-offs & remakes & reproductions, the whole Conceptual schtick that art is not about making, it's about positioning - it all strikes me as especially & consciously ANTI-poetic. It is diametrically opposed to the idea that, in the sphere of art, originality is inherent & necessary. & why is originality so fundamental? It's not simply a consequence of individualism, or copyright laws. It has to do with the relationship between originality and invention. Originality is the sign of something distinct, unique, and new. This originality of invention, which undergirds the new shape, figure or structure displayed in an authentic work of art, is what is primarily responsible, is the driving motor, for invigorating & bringing to life ALL the materials out of which the work is made (in the case of poetry, words, speech). So to make a mockery of this dimension is, as I see it, a kind of parasitical attack on the work of poets & poetry itself. These celebrated rip-offs & remakes & reproductions, the whole Conceptual schtick that art is not about making, it’s about positioning -

it all strikes me as especially & consciously ANTI-poetic. It is diametrically opposed to the idea that, in the sphere of art, originality is inherent & necessary.

& why is originality so fundamental? It’s not simply a consequence of individualism, or copyright laws. It has to do with the relationship between originality and invention. Originality is the sign of something distinct, unique, and new. This originality of invention, which undergirds the new shape, figure or structure displayed in an authentic work of art, is what is primarily responsible, is the driving motor, for invigorating & bringing to life ALL the materials out of which the work is made (in the case of poetry, words, speech).

So to make a mockery of this dimension is, as I see it, a kind of parasitical attack on the work of poets & poetry itself.
Report this comment

]]> By: Matt http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26067 Matt Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:18:34 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26067 It's nice to see someone stand up for Disney for a change. Good job. It’s nice to see someone stand up for Disney for a change. Good job.
Report this comment

]]> By: Bill Knott http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26066 Bill Knott Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:47:54 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26066 >>> it's strange, this furor and anger directed by Goldsmith and the other avanties at Paul Zukofsky for asserting his ownership under the copyright laws— isn't he simply claiming what others enjoy, other heirs of literary estates? why is he any different, any less entitled than the heirs of Robert Lowell? (I'd love to publish a volume where all of Lowell's "imitations" were collated chronologically with notes, but!) I know the reaction to Paul Zukofsky has something to do with the history of avantgarde esthetics and its bizarre delusions of outlawry— or perhaps the contempt and disregard directed at him has other historical precedents, left over from eras when a Zukofsky was granted less rights than a Lowell—— no, it's probably not antisemitism, per se, but rather the outrage felt toward a traitor to one's cause— our comrade has betrayed us, the avanties cry, hurt by what they feel is disloyalty to the holy tenets of their faith . . . they feel wounded by his, Paul Zukofsky's, renunciation of their sacred creed ... As always the faithful hate an apostate more an unbeliever, a heretic more than a heathen. .... >>>
it’s strange, this furor and anger directed by Goldsmith and the other avanties at Paul Zukofsky for asserting his ownership under the copyright laws—

isn’t he simply claiming what others enjoy, other heirs of literary estates?

why is he any different, any less entitled than the heirs of Robert Lowell?

(I’d love to publish a volume where all of Lowell’s “imitations” were collated chronologically with notes, but!)

I know the reaction to Paul Zukofsky has something to do with the history of avantgarde esthetics and its bizarre delusions of outlawry—

or perhaps the contempt and disregard directed at him has other historical precedents, left over from eras when a Zukofsky was granted less rights than a Lowell——

no, it’s probably not antisemitism, per se,

but rather the outrage felt toward a traitor to one’s cause—

our comrade has betrayed us, the avanties cry,

hurt by what they feel is disloyalty to the holy tenets

of their faith . . . they feel wounded by his, Paul Zukofsky’s, renunciation

of their sacred creed …

As always the faithful hate an apostate more an unbeliever,

a heretic more than a heathen.

….
Report this comment

]]> By: Bill Knott http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26059 Bill Knott Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:14:18 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26059 why stop at Zukofsky? if you permit the publishing of his work without permission of the copyright holder, who's next, Auden? screw Edward Mendelson and the other executors of the Auden estate... is that your goal? I'd love to put out a p-o-d chapbook of Larkin's 29 sonnets, so Monica Jones can bite it, is that what you're telling me? . . . Andrew Lloyd Webber should sue Valerie Eliot to get back the "Cats" royalties he paid her, according to you, right? Is that what you're saying? I realize the copyright laws are made by legislators paid graft by Disney and giant media congloms who want to extend them for commercial greed, but so are all the other laws they pass— why stop at Zukofsky? if you permit the publishing of his work without permission of the copyright holder,

who’s next, Auden? screw Edward Mendelson and the other executors of the Auden estate… is that your goal?

I’d love to put out a p-o-d chapbook of Larkin’s 29 sonnets, so Monica Jones can bite it, is that what you’re telling me? . . .

Andrew Lloyd Webber should sue Valerie Eliot to get back the “Cats” royalties he paid her, according to you, right? Is that what you’re saying?

I realize the copyright laws are made by legislators paid graft by Disney and giant media congloms who want to extend them for commercial greed,

but so are all the other laws they pass—
Report this comment

]]> By: Henry Gould http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26058 Henry Gould Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:27:03 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26058 Eliot. Right, & the Devil quotes Scripture, too. The poet is a maker, not a skimmer. Eliot. Right, & the Devil quotes Scripture, too.

The poet is a maker, not a skimmer.
Report this comment

]]> By: Bill Knott http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2009/10/the-digerati-strike-back/#comment-26057 Bill Knott Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:16:05 +0000 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/?p=5915#comment-26057 can't see how Eliot quoting a few lines from ancient poets justifies stealing anyone's legally copyrighted material . . . is the Obama poster/AP lawsuit apropos? can’t see how Eliot quoting a few lines from ancient poets justifies stealing anyone’s legally copyrighted material . . .

is the Obama poster/AP lawsuit apropos?
Report this comment

]]>