So, how does affect the style of the living, the way poetry, and it's
intellectual interrogation and discussion, gets unraveled.
I don't think the different position of Poetry, as Romantic (and the
different understanding Romanticism can take Mme de Stael to Baudelaire, 2
Rimbauld), Modernit, After-Modernist. are anything else than the axionomatic
variation in which an Elite speaks to a Immense Population, and the versus,
when the Immense Population feels this urging need, and deseperate to appeal
on to an Elite, and the risk, always latent, to mistake on for the other;
mostly because we do not leave all on the same time, on the same SPACe.
>Also interesting is the confusion over Romanticism as being rural or
>based and and Modernism as being urban, to put it crudely. But this is an
>interesting confusion also in art history terms. Michael Crimp argues that
>Postmodernism is an epistemic break with the Modernist espisteme. So to lay
>out a crude summary, we have Romanticism, Modernism and Postmodernism, as
>historic epochs in art history. Guattari does not agree with this and
>Postmodernism is reactionary late Modernism. Something I find myself more
>agreement with in art history terms. So the question I am more and more
>getting a sense of is that Postmodernism, so called, is not an espistemic
>break or argument with Modernism. That is a false problem. The interesting
>problem is the confusion between Romanticism and Modernism. This post metro
>discussion, I sense, is not a discussion about new types of Postmodernist
>poetry but a confusion and reappraisal of Romantic poetry and Modernist
>poetry, for example.
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com