The Problem Of Accessibility "In fact, I have always firmly believed that poetry is about communicating an experience through art. The reader necessarily has to bring their faculties to bear, and maybe do some work. But beyond some pretty basic requisites, I've always felt that poems should be accessible. " ~Robert Peake
I often enjoy reading Robert's blog, but I must disagree with him on this point. I see the standard of accessibility as a burden that handcuffs any artist, including poets. To say that what one writes must be accessible is no different that insisting that poetry be written in strict form. Or even that it must be written in free verse. Such limitations are all nonsense.
I don't feel, as some will tell you, that what Billy Collins writes is evil. I do indeed enjoy much of his work. But I an quite frankly tired of the lame game in poetry, those who would insist that it must be this way or that or else!
If poetry is about communicating an experience through art, as Robert firmly believes, why is it the poet cannot choose whatever medium he or she sees fit to best carry their artistic message? Do we tell paint artists they "must use only oils" never pastels or water color? That it must be on canvass? Do we tell musicians that you must play music only in minor keys? That you must have a set tempo and only work with certain instrumentation otherwise it is not art? That photographic art must be in full color no black and white allowed?
I do enjoy Billy Collins. But if all the poetry I read was in the same mold, how boring would that get? And where then would the art be?
Tags: Robert Peake Billy Collins Poetry acessibility in poetry artistic
2 comments:
Hi Robert...
Interesting choice for your quote. I don't normally associate Russell Baker with poetry. I think of him as more a humorist, prose writer and critic. In this day and age I suppose we are all the latter.
If I want to write something in which clarity is of the utmost importance, I would do so in prose. There I believe precise meaning is important. I don't see poetry that way at all.
The famous red wheel barrow poem by William Carlos Williams seems on the surface pretty straight forward. Yet, I doubt that many who read it really saw exactly what he wrote about. I believe no matter how straight forward poetry seems, poetry is a collaborative effort between the writer and the reader. Our understanding of what we see in verse is impacted by our varied life experiences. Two people are not going to see the
same thing unless their life experiences have been identical.
I have, over the years enjoyed hearing countless adaptations to poems I have written. These remind me how different each of us are and how our language is limited by our experiences in life. Sharing poetry can be a very public thing or it can become a private act between two consenting parties. But to me, poetry is so very different than prose, and I am expressly appreciate that aspect of it.
I rather like what A.E. Houseman said about poetry:
"Even when poetry has a meaning, as it usually has, it may be inadvisable to draw it out... Perfect understanding will sometimes almost extinguish pleasure."
You closed with, "How poetry strikes non-poets (like Baker, for example) is essential to how poetry will move and change in the future. These days, nearly all the readings I attend are in the company of other poets. Is that a sign of health in the art?"
In thinking about this I wonder is or should art reflect a normal marketing model? By this, I mean do we expressly want art marketed in the way we would a box of breakfast cereal? Created based upon the results of some focus group and what is believed to be what the consumer wants? Is a sign of how healthy an art is directly tied to a consumption quotient? I am sure there are some who judge it strictly on these terms. I don't.
Post a Comment