Rick,

In fact, I haven't been taught anything about the Image or about Imagism
by anyone except Pound.  Imagisme is Pound's term, not mine.  Anyway,
you're actually making my point.  As you note: "An Image is that which
presents an intellectual and emotional complex in an instant of time" (I
referred to your earlier posting before).  This is according to Pound,
and exactly as I said: thus defined, it isn't about "concrete objects".
  My point is that the words "Image", "Imagiste", "Imagist" all have
widespread connotations that are very different from what Pound meant by
them, which is why I choose Vorticist instead of Imagist.  In fact,
they're so common and so widespread that you believe that I believe in them.

Despite your blatant condescension, we seem to be in agreement (though
I'm still not sure and feel a similar exasperation to yours from a
different place) about the Image, just not about whether it's more
appropriate to refer to Pound's poetry as Imagist.  I will still read
Witemeyer, but that doesn't stop me from being critical of your use of
the "ply over ply" passage as an example of the image: that passage in
particular makes it easy to draw the conclusion that an Image and by
extension an Ideogram is a  series of concrete objects.  If you really
want to throw Amygism into stark relief as opposed to the Image (Pound
didn't usually use caps for this stuff and I'm loathe to do so myself,
but I'll let that pass) as above described, and to draw off any such
associations, and to show the ideogram in stark relief, Canto LXXXI is a
great example: and I use it because it's available on the web, not
requiring retyping, at http://www.uncg.edu/eng/pound/canto.htm

The entire Canto LXXXI is composed of Images as defined by Pound.  It
isn't passages of Images followed by passages of non-images.  It's ALL
Images.  I'll read Witemeyer with an open mind, but please quit foisting
authority on me.

Dirk

Richard Seddon wrote:

>Dirk:
>
>"An 'Image' is that which presents an intellectual and emotional complex in
>an instant of time"  Ezra Pound, "Literary Essays" edited by T. S, Eliot
>page 4.  Not Imagiste, not Amygism but the Image (big I).
>
>What more do you want?   The Image presents (a process) an intellectual and
>emotional complex.  I begin to understand Pound's exasperation.  It is so
>simple but requires intuition.
>
>Please read Witemeyer with an empty mind.  Forget all that Imagiste stuff
>for right now.  Forget everything you've been taught about Imagism.  Most of
>what you've probably been taught is really Amygism.  Amygism is much easier
>to teach since it has simple straight forward rules and is about
>representing a thing, the image(little i), in words.  Imagism takes an
>intuitive mind, is not straight forward and is not about things but rather a
>very dynamic process.
>
>Rick Seddon
>McIntosh, NM
>
>
>

--

Dirk Johnson
676 Geary #407
San Francisco, CA 94102

[log in to unmask]
Home: 415-771-7734
Office Direct: 510-208-8200
Office Fax: 510-208-8282