Ginsberg's Science
The man himself. This was titled "Allen Ginsberg: On a Good Day". I wonder what way his bearding was pointing the night before.I got a kick out of reading "Supermarket in California" today. My Writing 20 was on Walt Whitman and its always fun to see how he's interpreted trhiugh the years. Currently, we associate himself with homosexuality. Though Ginsberg obviously does so as well, he treats Whitman as a mentor figure, hinting at that Whitman was not only a very sensual being but a political one as well. At the time of Leaves of Grass' (whitman's lifelong work) printing, Whitman's politics and experimental poetic structure, an ancestor to Ginsberg's own deviance, were more intriguing than the poems' underlying homosexuality. Both Whitman and Ginsberg are experimental poets, whith poems featuring bold subject matter in creative structures. I found an interesting blip from a LIFE interview with Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac, where Ginsberg explains his take on science.
"So it was then either a revival of an old consciousness or the search for a new consciousness.... I don't think we [Ginsberg and Kerouac] had it clearly defined, but we were looking for something, as was Burroughs, as a kind of breakthrough from the sort-of hyper-rationalistic, hyper-scientific, hyper-rationalizing of the post-war era.
Now it was not an assault on reason. That's been much misinterpreted. It was an assault on hyper-rationalizations, you know, this fake science, fake cover-up, quasi-logical reasoning. The best example might be the inadequate science of the nuclear era. Although, like the sorcerer's apprentice, [scientists] were able to conjure up the power of the bomb, they weren't able to take care of the detritus and the waste products of the bomb. They still have not been able to. It's a half-assed science. It's not a real science.... "
What's up with all this 'hyper-rationalization'? Though it could be explained by the Acid Tests Ginsberg attended, I'm surprised at Ginsberg seeming interest in bettering science. I want to ask him "What is real science?". It almsot seems like he's alluding to some forgotten or ignored scientific ideal. Earlier in the article, Ginsberg comments "mechanical assault on human nature" that occurred in the '50s, a view later to be espoused in the '70s by leftist punk group The Dead Kennedeys. Their infamous song, "Soup is Good Food" , touches on how the science behind modern mechanization actually degrades human life instead of enriching it, as machines that are supposed to aide our pursuit of leisure only destroy other's sources of income (I think we touched on some of this post-modernist stuff on Wednesday class...).
It just doesn't mesh well when I try to call a poet, or Jello Biafra, a scientist. I think it has to do with the baggage of a science's label of dispassionate, analytical, even uncreative. But somehow, to refer to a poet as an experimenter makes sense.
posted by Katie at 5:11 PM
3 Comments:
Katie--thanks for bringing up this point (and many others) about the poet as a kind of "experimenter." It is really helpful.
A little Dead Kennedys is always a nice touch as well. :)
I completely see how poets could be considered experimenters, but I feel like the type of experiment is much different from scientific experiments. Poets experiment with form and content of their poems, trying to come up with something original that is well liked by the public. Yet scientists do experiments to discover the nature of life and hopefully improve on its flaws. Therefore, experiments in science are successful or unsuccessful, whereas in poetry, there is much of a gray area. But still, contradicting myself once again, scientific experiments nowadays, like cloning ands stem cell research, posses this gray area as well. So, what is the essential difference (if there is one) between poetic experiments and scientific experiments?
On a different note, I also think that art could be considered an experiment, very similar to poetry. Artists experiment with different forms, colors, styles, and various aspects of their works to see how they will be liked. But I fee like artists often times paint experimentally for the sake of being different. In some cases, there is some purpose or meaning to painting in a very unique way, but others, like Miro’s simplistic shapes or Pollock’s splatter painting. Therefore, are these really experiments, or just expressions of individuality? And therefore, perhaps poetry is also more of an expression than an experiment.
I agree that poets can be experimenters according to the definition that "experimenting" means trying something new. However, there is no contribution, no gaining further knowledge. Science experiments always contribute to human knowledge, whether proving our theory right or wrong, or by presenting a new phenomenon that has not yet been explained. An experimental change in poetry does not revolutonize the entire world, where scientific break throughs can.
Post a Comment
<< Home