POETICKS

I seem to be in a minority among poets, especially visual poets (who are generally much more visual artists than verbal artists, or word-people) in that I enjoy explicating poetry.  The other day, while stuck on an explication of a poem by daniel f. bradley for Small Press Review, I e.mailed him asking him for help on it–although I’ve known for years that he’s not very interested is discussing poetry, his or anyone else’s.  So I was not surprised when he declined my appeal.  Nor that he thought a work should stand by itself, without explanations.

I think his attitude probably a good one for a poet to have.  Analysis can take up energy that could be used creatively.  On the other hand, it’s . . . inconsiderate.  Sometimes a hint about what an artist is up to in a work can make the difference between an engagent of the work’s taking away a lifetime’s appreciation from it and getting nothing out of it.  The hint may even open the engagent to a whole kind of art he never would otherwise have enjoyed.

I’ve always felt, too, that when an artist seriously tries to explain his work, the explanation may constitute a second work perhaps as valuable as the first.  Why should a poetic description of the moon necessarily be more valuable that a critical description of a poetic description of a moon?

I’ve said all this before.  But it was on my mind again.