Poetic practice always seems to occupy a primary position when we try to picture the receptive horizon of the collective authorship of a particular period. What else if not the artistic text itself can be the expression of poetic opinion, the reaction that is relevant to the external factor of an extra-aesthetic plane, on which it is causally dependent? But the postclassical art poses an almost insoluble question: how to reinvent the very form of aesthetic reaction, which for many decades has been a reaction to a catastrophe of principle. If we alluded to the wellknown formula "Is it possible to write poetry after Auschwitz?", then the answer is unequivocal: it is possible, but in a different way, and not necessarily in the form of poetry. In general, the primacy of practice over theory, a significant inversion of the times of modernity, gives the artist much more patterns of symbolic gestures. The modern and postmodern actor is seen as a technologically conditioned structure (based on the needs of the era of technical reproducibility) rather than a quasisacral voicemedium, lastly emboldened by romantic intensionality. The choice of one discourse from a set of possibilities is therefore entirely appropriate to the contemporary literary situation and fully in tune with the latest metasensibility. The material in this article is related to this exact pattern. It is possible to take the path of least resistance, forcing authors into a poetic utterance that is normative in terms of expectations, but it is much more interesting and productive to propose a task in the essayistic plane. It is less centrist and even discursively macaronic, distracting us from artistic, stylistic signals and turning to the very essence of the poetic individual's response to an external challenge. In 2020, the challenge is roughly common to all, and the editors of Palimpsest decided to offer poets from different countries a kind of creative task on the theme of current triggers of the pandemic era.
|
