Phew - back from the big bicycle trip. My legs feel like stumps, and I have a persistent sore throat from inhaling diesel smoke, way out in "nature." In a state park, in a redwood grove, someone was watching a sitcom in a tent with the volume way up high. Scratch an American.
Getting back into the questions and answers:
why isn't the paglen work about uncovering?
As an X-Files fan, I'll just say that uncovering and uncovering do nothing. There's no power in it, just paranoia, and I think Paglen's reportage and romanticism are winking at it. "It's not a secret weapon if no one knows about it" &c. &c.
It's just that the romanticism of the night sky seems to keep that stuff 'endarkened.'
And, on to the subject of having a poetics.
Boy, those posts, esp. D. Bellamy's were pretty awe-inspiring. I think I prefer D.'s take on things. That Gossip then becomes history. It reminds me of Stein's hilarious "Remarks are not literature" - which really should be on a post-it above every blogger's screen.
As a quick, and really inadequate, response, I guess, in general, it's probably good and healthy not to make too many pronouncements. On the other hand, making a pronouncement gives you a side to be on, and then you can be a double-agent. I do want to say that 'negative capability' persists, despite Johannes' statement, and who cares? I think things can be simple and negative c. at the same time, probably.
can we be pragmatists about it? Is there a practical poetics?
It's probably fine to have a speculative poetics, but I think it would be fun to look at specifics and see how practical problems of poem making are ventured by a given poets. I think Rhubarb is Susan can be kind of dumb and really bro, sometimes, but the guy is specific. I've been teaching scientists too long.