As much as one should not discuss the aesthetics of an architecture in sculptural terms, should we really discuss the aesthetics of a poem in musical terms?
do aesthetics actually matter in the first place, or are they taking form in the satisfied pot-bellies of our imaginations? First we have to answer this question to realize the privileged simulacrum through which we are relating.
If aesthetics really matter within our discourse/simulacrum, cannot both poetics and architecture be fabricated within the aesthetic discourse of space before breaking into music/rhythm/solidity?
Does not the discourse on space return us to a general (socialist) critique of every day life - i.e. Lefebvre (particularly in The Production of Space) or maybe even Lukacs?
"All power to the imagination" aside, can we not approach poesis again within a greater poetic and architectural texture - the context of recreational space? Bachelard's The Poetics of Space is an interesting work looking at the two disciplines dialectics and hermeneutics. . .
The 'sheltering' of being in truth, as Heidegger would say, belongs to a condition of power which protects the en-owningness of da-sein. The poem is either a sheltering, closing thing which secures a truth of being, or it is an opening, clearing thing which reveals new existence.
I'm thinking of Bergson and Barthes (and maybe Steigler) in that discourse of time and being that involves spacial relationships of aesthetic opening/closing. Once again, however, I would stress the necessity that the territory of the poem be related to the social and not caught in overdetermination of political economy.
As poets, or people interested in poetry and poetics, I think we tend toward metaphor, which is a way of saying that I think it's inevitable we'd talk music when talking poetry.
Well, since we are talking of metaphors, should it necessarily turn to musical metaphors? Why not architecture, sculpture or painting? Or for that matter, talk about poetry as technology, the way Kasey does?
And now that we've broached on this, I find it funny that the Romans translated the Greek term tekhne as ars. Maybe something to think about later.
Comments
If aesthetics really matter within our discourse/simulacrum, cannot both poetics and architecture be fabricated within the aesthetic discourse of space before breaking into music/rhythm/solidity?
Does not the discourse on space return us to a general (socialist) critique of every day life - i.e. Lefebvre (particularly in The Production of Space) or maybe even Lukacs?
"All power to the imagination" aside, can we not approach poesis again within a greater poetic and architectural texture - the context of recreational space? Bachelard's The Poetics of Space is an interesting work looking at the two disciplines dialectics and hermeneutics. . .
The 'sheltering' of being in truth, as Heidegger would say, belongs to a condition of power which protects the en-owningness of da-sein. The poem is either a sheltering, closing thing which secures a truth of being, or it is an opening, clearing thing which reveals new existence.
I'm thinking of Bergson and Barthes (and maybe Steigler) in that discourse of time and being that involves spacial relationships of aesthetic opening/closing. Once again, however, I would stress the necessity that the territory of the poem be related to the social and not caught in overdetermination of political economy.
And now that we've broached on this, I find it funny that the Romans translated the Greek term tekhne as ars. Maybe something to think about later.