Allen Ginsberg and lover Julian Beck bare all for Art
One night, I found myself in the thick of the Ginsberg legend - not surprising - since a day earlier at an auction at the “Beat Museum” (North Beach) copies of “HOWL” triggered old memories.
Then, on the heels of that awakening, I came across a thick biography on Ginsberg steeped with insightful glimpses into the poet’s mystical soul.
Go figure!
After stumbling across a notice in the San Francisco Chronicle (which announced a reading of “HOWL” at the Yerba Buena Center) I ended up front-row center and inexplicably drawn to a reading of the controversial piece.
A tough assignment.
As three Poet Laureates wrestled with their interpretations of the remarkable literary work, Ginsberg’s profound musings - each carefully crafted word from all the astounding passages - bounced onto a screen behind and revved up the underlying theme.
Devorah Major’s voice was raspy and brimmed with rich full tones.
She performed her piece in a precise measured manner - which was effective for the most part.
But somehow, “Howl” - in a woman’s mouth - jarred the sensibilities somewhat when they tumbled out.
A second poet, Jack Hirschman, tackled his lines with great gusto.
For the most - the sharp punches he punctuated ‘em with - managed to hold the crowd’s collective breath in his thrall.
Overall, though, the interpretation was uneven, not very-well modulated, and lacked variety.
In sum, his interpretation was weak, ineffective, and uninspired.
The potent lines he delivered up deserved a better voice.
That of a seasoned actor, such as Richard Burton, perhaps.
The third woman - Janice Mirikitani - lacked the insight, depth and mere talent (even the imagination)to pull off the theatrics of “Howl”.
Her segment ended flat. I felt embarrassed for her.
Obviously, none of the readers had done their homework.
When Ginsberg wrote “Howl” - some passages were meant to resonate with an authoritative prophetic tone - which none came close to fathoming last night.
A handful of verses meant to be - “long litanies of sympathetic proclamations” - droned on senselessly without spirit or worthwhile inclination.
A ladder structure - the work of the long line - was not explored either, sadly.
Not did the - “barely in-control feeling of the Cassady word-rap” - come to life.
In fact, there didn’t appear to be any understanding of - “The beauty of abstract poetry of mind running along making awkward combinations like Charlie Chaplin’s walk, with long saxophone-like chorus lines…” - as originally intended by the author.
The rhythm, syntax, and diction that was painstakingly penned to effect an even and elastic flow from verse to verse was missing here.
But, what a footnote!
A young Afro-American male (Kahlil Anthony) started off by mimicking a jazz riff - while a young gospel-style singer sang - “Holy”, “Holy”, “Holy” - soulfully, almost reverently, at intermittent moments.
Then, the charismatic youth began to spout words.
Indeed - searched for ‘em one instant - experienced their wonder the next.
I marvelled at his reach and thrust.
As words trilled off the tongue - at first - he joyfully teased the audience as he hit the highs and the lows.
Then, the talented artist dove deep into the inner recesses of his soul.
Awesome!
In the midst of the staging, I imagined Ginsberg’s own delightful probe.
In essence - Kahlil’s performance of the “footnote” - was a startling entertaining ten or fifteen minutes of theater that brought the piece to life.
Ginsberg would have given a nod of approval, I’m sure.
Interesting, how the night came about.
According to Ken Foster (Director of the Yerba Buena Arts Center) respected artist Lawrence Ferlinghetti approached him about hanging a half-a-dozen paintings in the gallery which were rejected for display at another institution on the grounds that they were “offensive”.
At that meeting - the forward-thinking Foster suddenly recalled a local radio station also bowed out of an opportunity to present an on-air reading of “HOWL” in recent weeks - for fear of reprisal from the FTC for obscenity.
The confluence of the two events crystallized ideas that he had been mulling over in respect to the role of the artist and a gallery in the community.
It suddenly occurred to Foster that this was the perfect occasion to throw together a multi-media theatrical event with the express purpose of making a bold-faced statement about “freedom of expression”.
“We want to show work that is meaningful to a contemporary world, but sometimes artworks are controversial due to nudity, sexual situations or violence,” he noted in an essay published by “FORUM” at the San Francisco Chronicle.
Gallery officials (such as himself) were often forced to become gatekeepers, he complained.
Indeed - at the risk of not offending - Foster astutely conjectured it was wholly possible galleries might end up muffling the artistic voice.
In view of this, the Yerba Buena Art Center decided to toss an event featuring the alleged “offensive” paintings in tandem with a full-scale reading of the controversial Ginsberg poem “Howl”.
And likewise, opted to seize on the opportunity to note that there would be an “open door” policy at the Gallery, henceforth.
In sum, there would be no further warnings about the explicit nature of art exhibits or performances ongoing at the facility in the future.
Ironically, Ferlinghetti was the original publisher who fought obscenity charges in Federal Court when his press first unleashed “HOWL” onto the world stage about fifty years ago.
To be fair, there is nothing that “offensive” about Ferlinghetti’s paintings.
In fact, if there was an outcry, it was probably due to their lack of artistry.
While the art renderings show potential, they are somewhat primitive and lacking in professional stature.
Sorry, Lawrence.
In fact, the way the Yerba Buena Center has slapped ‘em up on the walls (without proper framing or labeling) may have been offensive to some, if not considered downright tacky. After all, the Yerba Beuna professes to be a professional gallery setting.
But, there is no law against a lack of sound judgment.
In contrast - “HOWL” - is an exemplary work of art.
After experiencing the theatrical presentation at the center, it is understandable why so many went to “bat” for it in the Federal Court when prosecutors sought to ban the poem on grounds of obscenity decades ago.
Originally, the legal battle was labeled a “WAR OF WORDS” over words.
According to Federal Law at the time, works had to be judged in their entirety and not by individual words and expressions - unless certain passages considered obscene - were included only to appeal to the salacious interests of the reader with no bearing on the work.
Ginsberg’s defense provided witnesses prepared to defend “HOWL” as a “whole”.
John G. fuller wrote in the Saturday Review:
“Howl is obviously a very serious effort and must be judged according to general law as a whole and not censored on the grounds of the individual words in it.”
In sum, the legal issues reduced the case to one all-important question:
If a literary work contained certain words or ideas found offensive in the general vocabulary, could the piece have lasting literary value?
Quite a distinguished group of literary notables appeared in court before Judge Clayton W. Horn (a formal Bible School Teacher) to attest to the veracity of the claims.
Vincent McHugh - a poet and novelist - described “HOWL” as a very real - “vision of modern Hell” - and testified the celebrated poem had all the hallmarks of literary excellence found in giant works by Ezra Pound, Dante, and Homer.
Luther Nichols - a book critic for the Herald Examiner - described Ginsberg as an “honest poet” and a competent technician.
It was noted that since Ginsberg floated through life a vagabond - with a persona colored by Jazz and a Bohemian education - that the words he found at his disposal (subject matter of the complaint) were intrinsic to the man, and thus, natural choices of expression for “Howl”.
A valid argument focused on the impact of HOWL on a person’s thoughts and actions.
“You can’t think common rotten things just because you read something in a book,” it was argued, “Unless it is your purpose to read common rotten things and apply common rotten things to what you read.”
But the judge had his own take, which prevailed for obvious reasons.
“If considering a work obscene was a matter of showing how it created lustful thoughts in the readers, or if the word or phrase has to be proven to lead to corruption or depravity in the reader, the word would have to be of an erotic nature.”
“If the material is disgusting, revolting, or filthy - to use just a few adjectives,” - Horn opined, “the antithesis of pleasurable sexual desire is born and it cannot be obscene.”
Case dismissed!
However, Horn was inclined to set a few guidelines for future cases on obscenity in the event they made their way to court.
For instance, he wrote in his opinion:
“If material has the slightest redeeming social importance it is not obscene because it is protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.”
A second legal finding is my favorite:
In considering material claimed to be obscene remember the important motto:
“Honi soit qui mal y pense.”
Or, in plain old English:
“Evil to him who Evil thinks”.
