Forgive the Aristotelian question "What is?" but ever-blogging Ron Silliman has a post up wherein he answers some questions posed by the Poetry Foundation and the Aspen Institute. It's from a questionnaire the PF sent to Mr. Silliman (if you received one, consider yourself officially recognized) intended to inform discussion and debate at an upcoming conference.
Mr. Silliman writes in answer to the question "What are the most pressing needs of poetry and the poetry community?":
There are presently at least 10,000 publishing English-language poets. There may in fact be twice that number . . . In the 1950s, there were at most a few hundred poets publishing in English. . . . Considering what percentage of the populace actually reads for pleasure, and of that the tiny fraction that reads poetry, we find ourselves in the century of niche markets. And poetry is not one niche market, but many.
Two observations before retiring to contemplate this a bit more:
The question the Poetry Foundation is asking is an economic one. What are the most pressing needs of poetry and the poetry community that can be met through economic means?
On the one hand, this shows an admirable activism on the Poetry Foundation's part to discharge their responsibility for the approximately $100 million gift they received a few years ago. If they know the pressing needs they can apply their resources where it will do the most good.
On the other hand, once the horizon has been established as economic, all other concerns and questions fall below that horizon -- out of sight and out of mind. Economic questions imply business-related solutions (i.e., 'responsible' solutions) which in turn imply an assumption about the nature of poetry. I'm not sure what that implied nature is, whether it's "poetry operates like a market" or "the quality and reach of poetry can be increased by economic means" but some kind of limiting assumption is inevitable. For instance, Dylan Thomas' answer to that question might be "the most pressing need of poetry right now is another fecking drink and a dirty, boozy girl to share it with." Of course he wouldn't say "fecking" which is an Irish locution.
Second observation: If Mr. Silliman is right in his answer, or even close to right, then this is not just a qualitative change in poetry from the 1950's, but also a change in the nature of what poetry is. Like all changes, this must be in part due to a technological change. Mr. Silliman points out some changes in publishing technology and educational technology that might be among the causes.
I don't mean to say that poetry now has a completely different nature than it did 50 years ago. If that were true we would no longer recognize poetry from previous times as poetry. I mean that poetry has changed genetically. It is still the same genus, but some sort of speciation has taken place. And, like all speciation, these changes are not better or worse (it's not "progress," folks), but the result of environmental (technological) changes.
So the question is what in poetry's eidos, its manifest nature, has changed and what hasn't. What is poetry?
Comments