Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Phil Brown

GET UPDATES FROM Phil Brown
 

Clarity of Expression and Dirty Money in Poetry

Posted: 15/12/11 14:51

"I think poetry is the opposite of money, but money is something we might end up talking about - and since this is England - we shall probably discuss it sideways in terms of grants and awards. If I hold up a ten pound note and a poem and I burn one then the other, how do we feel?" - David Morley

This month, Alice Oswald and John Kinsella withdrew themselves from the TS Eliot Prize shortlist. With £15,000 and arguably greater prestige than any other British poetry accolade, dropping out was clearly not a decision taken lightly. Their reasoning? The funding behind the TS Eliot prize now comes from Aurum, a hedge-fund investment company, rather than the recently withdrawn Arts Council Funding that used to keep the Poetry Book Society afloat. To quote Oswald, "I think poetry should be questioning not endorsing such institutions.'

As is always the case when poetry manages to scandal its way into the broadsheets, the poets of London took to their blogs and Facebook walls to discuss the issue at length. Katy Evans-Bush brilliantly wrote it up as the genesis of the Occupy Poetry movement. Todd Swift, in usual devil's advocate form, suggested that all anti-capitalist poets should move to North Korea (then he thought better of it and removed the post). Oswald herself wrote for the Guardian that 'I hope my fellow poets will have different opinions and not be afraid to express them.'

This is the second time in the last six months that the British poetry framework has had its dirty laundry aired in the dailies. Last Summer, the Poetry Society had a mass exodus of trustees over the matter of the misallocation of Arts Council funding and the alleged bullying of an employee. As a result, the Poetry Society's continued public funding is still unsure and, from what I gather, morale at their head office suffered immeasurably.

At the heart of both situations are a set of assumptions about public and private money and the contrasting characters of both. The largest criticism of the Poetry Society's trustees was that they were using the society's funds to pay for expensive legal advice from a private firm; clean money floating towards the supposedly mendacious, muddy private sector.

On the flipside, the Poetry Book Society is now coming under criticism for finding financial support from a hedge-fund investor; dirty, mendacious private money slouches towards the clean fortress of integrity and non-capitalist values that is poetry.

But, short of writing a short biography of every penny's journey from the Royal Mint to the poet's pocket, this attitude is a very difficult one to see through to its logical conclusion. As has been iterated again and again in light of this recent poetry-spat, no money is truly 'clean', and to live, work, win financial prizes of any nature and sell a product (even a collection of poetry) in this country is to engage with capitalism on a very tangible level.

If we are to call foul-play at the capitalism of an Aurum funded TS Eliot prize, then surely we must denounce all of poetry's other pet plaudits. The Eric Gregory and Cholmonedy Awards are presented in Picadilly's Cavalry and Guard Club, funded through private donations. Should I have asked where Gregory got his money before I cashed the cheque? The Costa Book Awards are funded by a big-chain café - aren't they the ultimate emblem of capitalist sensibilities? Shall I pick the phone up now and berate Hugo Williams for accepting his Queen's Gold Medal for poetry?

Of course Oswald is calling for none of this - her intentions are creative, not destructive. Her recent actions, on a fundamental level, have served the functions of a well written poem and should be read as such. She has produced critical responses, complex interpretations, and has forced us to reconsider a once-familiar landscape with new scrutiny. As any great poet should, she has not given us answers but lead us towards the discussions that we need to have.

 
 
 

Follow Phil Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/silkwormsink

 
 
  • Comments
  • 3
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
10:36 on 28/12/2011
It's not jut about where the money has been, everyone knows that money goes everywhere. One could ask, more clearly, where the value is created and where it comes from. How is the donor creating the value that it allows to drip down to a few loudly heralded causes? This is also the point at hand, the donor is not doing this out of any real sense of selflessness, they get to associate themselves with a noble cause (while getting a tax write off for their troubles - that's real, countable money that won't be going to schools, roads or pensions). We aren't talking about an anonymous donation, we're talking about a donation from a company that shouts their philanthropic donations to the high heavens while keeping their profit making investments schtum. The poets are making a choice as to whether they want their work placed into immediate association with a hedge fund firm. This is what Aurum are paying for at a pre Boxing Day, knockdown price.
09:22 on 28/12/2011
Hi Phil, interesting to link these two stories! The ebb & flow of clean & dirty money in the arts... austerity and patronage... poetry loose in the real world... I've got one small clarification - not on the substance of your piece, but just to update on the situation over the summer. The Guardian says in a recent article, announcing Roger McGough as the Poetry Society's new president, that the Arts Council 'said on Wednesday that it had "recently released some funding to the Poetry Society in recognition of the considerable progress it has made towards meeting the conditions we set over the summer", and that it hoped "to move to a full restoration of funding in the new year". Good news.
00:14 on 19/12/2011
I respect the motives and intentions of those writers who have chosen to withdraw from the short-list. However, as the author of this article conjectures - if one starts to follow the pennies involved in the sponsorship of almost any artistic or "entertainment" venture (assuming that is even possible) we are presented with potential "moral" choices. This has been evident most recently also in the Sporting sphere with a possibly boycott of the 2012 Olympics by India due to the inclusion one of the games sponsorship partners. It also seems a little disingenous that finely tuned athletes find themselves indirectly cast as the standard bearers for burger and soft drink companies.
Returning to the Eliot prize, I suppose each author has their own sense of who is and isn't an acceptable sponsor. I remember many years ago an acquaintence arguing against the subsidising of Arts projects from the National Lottery Fund as taking pennies from the desperate and ploughing it into ill-attended fringe productions. Anyway, as I said originally - respect to the authors who felt compelled to stick to their artisitic principles.