Thursday, February 9, 2012

Some important posts today by David Miller

Gil Ott was a very considerable poet and an intelligent person. He would not, I believe, have spoken of Frank's "religiosity" ( a regrettable and condescending term). Frank's spirituality and his sense of a "poverty art" drew Gil and I towards Frank and towards each other. Robert Lax was the other contemporary poet I would see in this light, and Frank definitely respected him - as shown by his contribution to 'The ABCs of Robert Lax', which the late Nick Zurbrugg and I edited, and which must have been one of Frank's last publications during his lifetime. I must just say how grateful everyone who admires Frank's work should be to Claudia for continuing to celebrate his work. David Miller

I'll reply to my own remarks. Frank INSISTED on the idea of poetry as SPIRITUAL ART. If you don't agree with this, you can still analyze Frank's work, of course, but you are going against his sense of FUNDAMENTAL ORIENTATION and you are missing the point. Rothko was confronted once by someone who said that all he saw in R's paintings were colour relationships. R said, if that's all you see, you've missed the point. Same with Samperi. Samperi isn't just about minimalism (though minimalism isn't inappropriate), he isn't about Objectivism (possibly not at all).... He is about poetry as SPIRITUAL ART. And there is nothing New Age about this... my God, Frank would have despised the whole notion. (And I can't imagine Gil Ott going along with it.) Frank's poetics were rooted in Aquinas and Dante. I can imagine it otherwise... possibly Vedanta, possibly Mahayana Buddhism... but would Frank? I don't really think so... though I may be wrong, David Miller

2 comments:

  1. I agree entirely with Miller's comments. Samperi's poetics is both Thomist and Dantean. Samperi was anything but "new age": I despise the shallowness of that term and any viewpoint that attaches the name of Frank Samperi to it.

    He wrote in a minimalist style and lived/wrote during the Objectivist era: but what he did with both was uniquely his and never compromised the purity of his own poetry.

    ReplyDelete