What They Give or What You Get?

To me, the intent of the writer is the job. It's why poetry is so difficult to compose. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't disappointing, with a pewter lining of failure, when what was received was not even in the ballpark of what I thought I'd broadcast.

All that aside, there are degrees of this. It seems some poems are written to evoke a mood, so the margin is wide. I found that to be true with many of the love poems from the Valentine's Day Contest. But when the pointy-er ones glance off their targets, it feels a defeat.

I don't think the writer is doing his/her job correctly if he/she doesn't get the reader to understand what the poem is saying.

Even if the poem has multiple meanings/interpretations, I would hope the poet wanted it that way.

If you're just looking for opinions, then I'd say only the reader's interpretation counts. With poetry and novels, but not with legal documents or directions for the use of chainsaws.

Julie Worth said:

If you're just looking for opinions, then I'd say only the reader's interpretation counts.

Click to expand...

I disagree, adamantly. Is the writer expected to anticipate how readers will react? If the intention counts for nothing - and, yes, that's what was said - then why write at all?

Sure, the reader is part of the creative experience. I remember having a discussion with the lovely and talented aspier about poem/reader interaction in the "What is Poetry?" thread; I'll edit this post later to add the link.

But the idea that meaning is entirely dependent on the reader frightens the bejeezus out of me. That's the end of the first amendment.

The intent of the artist, I believe, stays true to what the artist intended. However, as that expression of art is interpreted by different perspectives and different observations, it automatically begins an metamorphis. Just to have the object of art released publically and the change begins. Sometimes, that change is more perceptible than with others. Sometimes, that original work of art spawns reditions of the original, or original interpretations of the original. Artist and observer know they are experiencing "the same thing" but in a different ground. The artist expects and grants permission for this change of perception to occur by expressing something publically. The original does not stop existing because of interpretation or misperception but it does become a part of a larger family of perceptions that it spawns.

Many artists have been emulated as others have attempted to "be them" or follow in their path.

In actuallity, nothing is new under the sun, and if that is true, all artist's, all humans are by nature "recombiners" borrowing from what's around us.

I think the originator serves the purpose to originate and the observer serves the purpose to observe. They are dependent on each other. It's all good.

Are you talking about poetry specifically, or any sort of artistic endeavor?

I disagree with the implication that a misunderstanding is the same as a lie. A lie is an intent to deceive. The author/artist/whomever put something out there to be experienced by an audience. The author of the work did not intend to deceive the audience, therefore no lie is involved if the audience does not comprehend the author's original intent. The "fault", if there is one, could be on either the side of the author (didn't really convey the message, missed the target) or the audience (wasn't listening to everything, missed a clue, doesn't have the same background as the author, etc.).

In any case, does it matter if the audience does not completely click with the author's original intentions? No one can ever perceive the same event in exactly the same way as any other person. As an author/artist, I'm happy if my audience is even in the same ballpark as me, much less standing on the same base.

I agree that the intent is the key thing.

But then again there are times I have been confused as to how people didn't see what I felt to be crystal clear in some poems posted here.

Conversely, there have also been many times when I've read comment after comment lauding a poem and its meaning, yet I just couldn't fathom it.

And, of course, if I don't understand it or get it, I can't enjoy it. And I wind up thinking it sucks.

So, it leads me to wonder - how does one know if a poem is truly good? Or qualify a poem as great? By how many people get it? Or is it all so subjective we'll never know?

It's all so subjective, we'll really never have a consensus.

kdnxdr said:

The intent of the artist, I believe, stays true to what the artist intended. However, as that expression of art is interpreted by different perspectives and different observations, it automatically begins an metamorphis. Just to have the object of art released publically and the change begins. Sometimes, that change is more perceptible than with others. Sometimes, that original work of art spawns reditions of the original, or original interpretations of the original. Artist and observer know they are experiencing "the same thing" but in a different ground. The artist expects and grants permission for this change of perception to occur by expressing something publically. The original does not stop existing because of interpretation or misperception but it does become a part of a larger family of perceptions that it spawns.

Many artists have been emulated as others have attempted to "be them" or follow in their path.

In actuallity, nothing is new under the sun, and if that is true, all artist's, all humans are by nature "recombiners" borrowing from what's around us.

I think the originator serves the purpose to originate and the observer serves the purpose to observe. They are dependent on each other. It's all good.

Click to expand...

This is basically my opinion. What the artist says matters, but the collaboration of time and readers ultimately takes it out of the artist's hands.

I think an informed reader should know what the poet meant, but that something can mean more than intended. After all, we only know ourselves so well, and can be blind to our own leanings.

just say the word "discussion", I'm there!

Never forget that a writer, (particularly a poet), is writing on both a conscious and unconscious level and may in fact be trying to achieve meaning on several levels as well.

Browning is said to have declared that a reader was entitled to interpret a poem in any way he wished, as long as they could support it within the context of the poem. In other words if one has to depend on external knowledge of any kind, (be it biographical, historical or based on personal viewpoint/bias, etc.), such interpretation is invalid.

I agree with Browning. Here is a poem of mine that has often been misunderstood and misinterpreted and I'll leave it up to you to determine in what way and why such interpretations might have been made.

*******

On Hallowed Ground (s)

Build the gay Basilica,
Brick lying golden.
The moon has winked at myriad days.
The ground, unturned, a cold and ruddy firmament.
The bricks still lie and oil is burned at night,

No incense yet.

The walls that tower are yet unbuilt.
Alter, organ, pews, and choir-loft
As yet, un-sifted from the sand.
The brick are fallen where the priest will stand,

Tomorrow.

Motors turn;
Whine the weight of men and steel.
Girders rise;
Concrete spills into its forms.

The dream will fill.
A bell will ring.

The men will come in swarms.

Copyright Fall 1964 James R. Hoye

JRH

P.S. There is a corollary to Browing's statement (or at least an underlying principle), and that's that it is the responsibility of the Poet to make his message as clear and understandable as possible, no matter how many levels of meaning he is trying to achieve, remembering always that "obscurity is the refuge of incompetence". If the Poet does that, then Browniing's declaration is the only sensible way to look at the issue.

kdnxdr said:

Artist and observer know they are experiencing "the same thing" but in a different ground. The artist expects and grants permission for this change of perception to occur by expressing something publically.

Click to expand...

I can only agree with this up to the admission that the shade of blue I'm seeing in the sky may not be exactly the shade you perceive. Art, and most especially, poetry, to me, is at its finest when it bridges the span between author and reader; renders, as close as possible, irrelevant the individual lens that we hold up to process ordinary events through.

If it's just that a hotdog tastes like crap to me and is part, parcel and ambrosia to the baseball fan sitting one row down, then it's hardly worth the effort.

As a writer (almost exclusively of prose, so take all this for what it's worth) I can't be satisfied with, "well, it makes sense to me."

Now after all that, I will qualify with this - not all poetry will reach all readers. If there is a core that "gets it" then wonderful! and, as for the rest of them, eff 'em if they can't take a joke.

Thanks for the revision. The "lie vs. mistake" thing is one of my pet peeves. Didn't mean to hijack.
-----


One thing to consider is that understanding can occur over time and with repetition. I've encountered artistic works which seem to have layers. The first time I see the painting/read the poem, I get the surface images. The second time through I see deeper connections, the third time shows me more, and so on. The more I contemplate the work, the more I understand it, or rather, the more I gain from the contemplation. Each pass through the work becomes a journey where I see different scenery. Is my destination the same as what the author intended? I don't know, but I know I'll enjoy each trip I make. How much I enjoy it depends partly on the skill of the author and partly on how much effort I put in.

When I read a poem or view a work of art, for that matter, I'm looking for it to affect me in some way--to change my life, if you will, even if it's just for a moment.

If art can do that to me; inspire me to think or feel about something, then, to me, it's successful. Of course, I'm also assuming that what I'm thinking/feeling about is what the artist intended.

When I visited the National Gallery of Art awhile back, I was viewing one of the abstract art pieces on the wall from different angles and trying to figure out if I liked it. A foreigner came up to me and started discussing the picture, and we had a nice conversation about it. He told me that Americans don't generally discuss the art in museums--they just view it quietly, but people in other countries use art as a springboard for discussions and debates.

I think it's really great when a piece of work--either visual or written--inspires conversation to examine the meanings.

JRH, is there an air of mockery as in "the men will come in swarms."?

I think an absolute purist would create something and then never let anyone see it so that it always remainded the same.

It's interesting, even here in AW, I think even with William, there have been critiques where the author said something about appreciating the insight of the critique because it helped the author to realize some insight as to what the author him/her self intended, and that the collaboration of interpretation helped the author to understand the poem his/her own self.

I, personally, don't believe in muses. (Please don't hate me) If this is so, and muses are in fact, the originators, then I could see how a poet would just be the instrument of expression and only after the creative act could the artist be released to seek the meaning h/self.

Often, I have heard an artist be suprised at the result of h/own work.
Some have even spoken of being possessed as they worked.

kdnxdr said:

Often, I have heard an artist be suprised at the result of h/own work.
Some have even spoken of being possessed as they worked.

Click to expand...

Many, I'm sure, will admit to being REpossessed as they worked.

My apology, William, I looked back at what I referencing in my head, and it was someone else.

Kdnxdr,

There is a great deal more than just an "air" of mockery in the line, "the men will come in swarms."

It's the primary signal that this was never meant to be interpreted as a religious poem (although, for the most part, it has been).

Faith is not mentioned anywhere in the body of the poem, only the description of the "Church" and it's trappings.

Moreover the phrase "Gay Basilica" should have been the first clue, even though "Gay", at that time, was generally thought of as representing gaiety and joy. but even with that interpretation it provided a stark and unexpected contrast to the somberness and sobriety of a Basilica, and should have started the reader thinking about what attitude towards religion was being reflected there. Moreover, that plus the lack of references to faith within the poem should have implied that the "dream" that "will fill" is a physical one rather than a spiritual one)

In it's current meaning relative to "homosexuality" the word "gay" directly implies that the "Church" is "perverted" and thus makes that ending line, totally ironic and filled with mockery.

I admit to thinking of "gay" only as a contrasting image, (at least on a "conscious" level), when I first wrote the poem, but I totally embrace the newer meaning as reinforcing the orignal point of the poem which I felt was clear as it was written. (and still do).

JRH