The Disney films were not "made with no loss of time". The way images were set to music might have appealed to Pound. And the correlation of even ancillary visual detail -- the backgrounds and the minor characters -- in service of the theme is also likely to have earned Pound's praise. The shrubbery was neo-Botticellian. Disney coordinated teams or artists in such a way that exquisite attention was paid to every detail.  Pound is likely to have approved of the Studio's organizational structure: it enabled the talents of many artists to be marshalled in service of an artistic vision or aesthetic idea.
 Tim Romano
 
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: D Wellman <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: Inquiry
 
 
> ... there are arguments that Pound misread Fenellosa. He was interested
> in both Kandinsky and Futurism in the arts and has some words to say
> about Picasso at the time of the Vorticism essay and all of these
> currents are coming together for him. Rothenberg pointed out long ago
> that Pound ignores the seriality that is central to The Chines Character
> ... Instead he works with super-positions, one image poems etc, compound
> characters.
> 
> ... I have always felt that Fenellosa and Eisenstein were very much
> kindred spirits in so far as an ideogrammic method went and that Dziga
> Vertov, for instance, offers the approrpriate parallel for Pound's
> method.
> 
> Still, I know nothing to suggest that Pound himself was aware of such
> differences or issues. I'd eagerly pursue any that might be forthcoming
> from this discussion.
> 
> How do you align the Disney chatter with his excoriation of the "prose
> kinema" in Mauberley?
> 
> Don Wellman
> 
>