public and private language

A few of you have asked for some more clarification of the private/public language issue. I recently sent out an email to one of your classmates explaining this in a little more detail (or perhaps just in a different way). So for what it's worth, here is another explaination of private/public and how it might relate to language and poetics.

The idea of private/public is a complex one. But one way to enter the discussion is to think about what is commonly thought about poetry/music/art in terms of self-expression. Self-expression is the idea of a private language (the yearnings of the soul etc.) made public through publication. However, both Lisa Jarnot and Harryette Mullen (as well as many other artists) challenge that notion. Take Harryette Mullen's work for example. The language she uses to create poetry is already public language (signs at airports, commercials, famous poetry like Shakespearen Sonnets etc.) She takes this public language and resamples it, recreates it. So her language materials (or her inspiration) is coming from outside her self. From the public sector.

In a different way, Lisa Jarnot also challenges the notion of public and private by having many voices and intense repetition. It is difficult to imagine one individual "expressing" all of the language she uses. You could argue, certainly to a lesser extent than Harryette Mullen, that she is getting her language from outside her private self.

Now, the interesting question is: what then is private, self-expressive language? Is language always already public? In other words, language is already out there and we can take that language and resample it but we can't start from scratch.

Hope this opens up some ideas. Like I've said this private/public idea is an interesting and complex issue to chew on. It is especially relevant to Harryette Mullen's work.