Illustrated Poetry

[PatCarrington]

1201, If I am right, neither you, Pat Carrington nor me could do such a comparason fairly. The reason I believe, is that the way our minds work we simply do not have the mental receptors (perception) necessary to appreciate words and pictures simultaneously. Angeline, Lauren, Neo, Liar & WSO clearly do . However, even the illustrating poets apreciate the problems with superimposed words and images and Lauren made the point that she sought a "comfort zone" where both image and words can be appreciated. What Lauren cannot know from her own experience is that this comfort zone doesn't exist for a significant minority.

Incidentally it was Laurens' Al Gharb series which inspired this thread. I was re reading the earlier poems and my wife spotted the fact that I looked at each of the images then scrolled them out of vision whilst I read the poems. Why? etc.

We all know that different readers appreciate the same poem in different ways but I think that illustrated poetry is uniquely problematic in that for some of us there is a perception problem which ensures that this kind of work tends to be rejected before any critical consideration of it can be made

that is probably true. i certainly cannot be an objective judge in that case, since my bias is clear.

but i also question the effectiveness of the genre in general.

judging from the size of the illustrated poetry corner in relation to the poetry market in general, it is no doubt just a fringe corner. (and poetry itself is a shrinking corner itself in the entire universe of the written word).

i wonder whether that has to do with tradition, or the viability of illustrated poetry in general as a communicative tool.

i certainly think illustrated poetry is indicative of a general tendency of the modern world toward instant gratification, and perhaps, even intellectual laziness.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

i certainly think illustrated poetry is indicative of a general tendency of the modern world toward instant gratification, and perhaps, even intellectual laziness.

That's interesting. I had never thought of that, to tell the truth. Do you consider E.E. Cummings' poetry intellectually lazy, or somehow faster/easier to grasp than most traditional poetry?

 

[Rybka]

That's interesting. I had never thought of that, to tell the truth. Do you consider E.E. Cummings' poetry intellectually lazy, or somehow faster/easier to grasp than most traditional poetry?

Sometimes words, their placement, and/or visual images augment each other.

Lauren, remember that Atomic Bomb illustrated poem that you helped me with? I still can't post it here because every time I try to shrink it the file size goes up, which I don't understand.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Lauren, remember that Atomic Bomb illustrated poem that you helped me with? I still can't post it here because every time I try to shrink it the file size goes up, which I don't understand.

That has probably to do with the program you're using to shrink it. Photoshop, for example, has a terrible compression logarithm.

I always save the final version of my image files with Irfanview (at 70%) and it makes the files much smaller.

 

[PatCarrington]

That's interesting. I had never thought of that, to tell the truth. Do you consider E.E. Cummings' poetry intellectually lazy, or somehow faster/easier to grasp than most traditional poetry?

not at all. i think all written work, poetry and prose, are not-restrictive. vision is left to the reader. i don't think it has to do with speed or ease.

all illustrated poetry and illustrated prose, remind me, in a way, of those 'comic book classic' renditions of novels. i think they remove from the reader things he possesses when given words only.

i just don't feel words are augmented by illustration. i think they're shrunken.

 

[wildsweetone]

Please post the words apart from the picture. I wish to do an A - B comparision

by the Still Pond silence is unheard
for the sound of cicadas permeates
placid air
fantails flit
from branch to branch
capturing prey on the wing
and the sun burnishes wet boulders








the illustration without words:
Still Pond Photo
(tolyk sent me an enhanced version of this photo - the colours are brighter)

 

[Lauren Hynde]

not at all. i think all written work, poetry and prose, are not-restrictive. vision is left to the reader. i don't think it has to do with speed or ease.

all illustrated poetry and illustrated prose, remind me, in a way, of those 'comic book classic' renditions of novels. i think they remove from the reader things he possesses when given words only.

i just don't feel words are augmented by illustration. i think they're shrunken.

But E.E. Cummings used words as graphic elements as well, i.e., he wrote illustrated poems.

I think you suffer from the same problem as 1201. Your view is entirely valid when applied to some figurative illustration (illustration in the strictest of senses), but you forget about graphic poetry where image and verb draw from each other to create meaning that goes beyond each separate entity's. Graphic art can be as much or in fact much more open to subjective interpretation than words.

 

[PatCarrington]

But E.E. Cummings used words as graphic elements as well, i.e., he wrote illustrated poems.

I think you suffer from the same problem as 1201. Your view is entirely valid when applied to some figurative illustration (illustration in the strictest of senses), but you forget about graphic poetry where image and verb draw from each other to create meaning that goes beyond each separate entity's. Graphic art can be as much or in fact much more open to subjective interpretation than words.

i WAS speaking about figurative illustration, how by its nature it forces the reader to be less participatory in the poetry and its emotions and ambiguities.

using word or punctuative placement is another matter, though i'm not fond of that either.

 

[Guest]

The only illustrated poem of mine I was remotely pleased with was Between The Covers .

 

[Lauren Hynde]

i WAS speaking about figurative illustration, how by its nature it forces the reader to be less participatory in the poetry and its emotions and ambiguities.

using word or punctuative placement is another matter, though i'm not fond of that either.

Again, I'll insist that it would be a valid comment with regard to some figurative illustration, because some (other) figurative illustration can also be as open to subjective interpretation as conventional text.

Let me ask you if you think that, for example, in my latest illustrated poem Al·Gharb·5, the image weakens the text that comes with it. And if so, why? And conversely, does the text weaken the image?

 

[PatCarrington]

Again, I'll insist that it would be a valid comment with regard to some figurative illustration, because some (other) figurative illustration can also be as open to subjective interpretation as conventional text.

Let me ask you if you think that, for example, in my latest illustrated poem Al·Gharb·5, the image weakens the text that comes with it. And if so, why? And conversely, does the text weaken the image?

i think it's a valid comment, period (when dealing with figurative illustration).

to the best of my memory, and i speak only from personal reaction, i have never seen a poem that was figuratively illustrated where i felt the image added to the quality of the poem. almost always, i feel it detracts. whether the illustration is open to intrepretation or not, i have never felt it augmented.

the way you have done the Al Gharb series does not bother me, since i am free to view poem and picture as separate entities. they are not superimposed, so i don't even have to look at the picture if i choose not to, and certainly not while i'm reading. i choose not to.

i don't think the photo weakens the text, but only because i choose not to consider it while i read. if i did consider it while reading, i feel it would be weakening, or at best neutral, by its very nature, since it would (might) limit me in what my mind sees as i read.

i suppose the same would make sense in the opposite direction, but i am not a photographer, just a casual fan, so i don't feel as strongly in that direction.

 

[wildsweetone]

It sounds like you're saying the difference is like I feel between reading a book and watching a movie of the same story.

 

[PatCarrington]

It sounds like you're saying the difference is like I feel between reading a book and watching a movie of the same story.

not really.

my point is that illustrations dictate what to see, and thereby limit the participatory and interpretive aspects of poetry, which to me are what make it tick.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

if i did consider it while reading, i feel it would be weakening, or at best neutral, by its very nature, since it would (might) limit me in what my mind sees as i read.

That's a fine generalisation, but doesn't really say much, does it?

In what way does that specific photograph limit your interpretation of that specific poem? What does your mind see when reading the text that is lost when you look at the poem in its entirety (i.e. including the photograph)?

 

[PatCarrington]

That's a fine generalisation, but doesn't really say much, does it?

In what way does that specific photograph limit your interpretation of that specific poem? What does your mind see when reading the text that is lost when you look at the poem in its entirety (i.e. including the photograph)?

yes, it does say a lot.

it says that i feel (and this is me) that any photograph, no matter the beauty or quality, would limit my interpretive freedom if i consider the photo while reading, merely by presenting itself. it may be not only far from what the words alone might trigger in my mind, but by being not only tangible but solitary, it may also limit the theoretically endless number of pictures my mind might generate.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

yes, it does say a lot.

it says that i feel (and this is me) that any photograph, no matter the beauty or quality, would limit my interpretive freedom if i consider the photo while reading, merely by presenting itself. it may be not only far from what the words alone might trigger in my mind, but by being not only tangible but solitary, it may also limit the theoretically endless number of pictures my mind might generate.

LOL

Fine, but if that's your final word, I'll have to read it as a decision you made through rationalisation and that you will never change, even if it doesn't hold water. The photograph can be as much a metaphor for the theme as the words themselves. It doesn't have to be the materialisation of those words, nor do the words have to be a description of the image.

The same rationalisation would apply - more than the books and movies thing - if you wanted to say that all stories should have no ending, because it would limit the theoretically endless number of endings your mind might generate.

 

[wildsweetone]

An open mind opens so many facets of life around us.

Perhaps Pat it would be worth you reading the poetry and getting the maximum you can from the words and then combining the poetry with the illustrations and seeing if it is possible to take your own realisations another step...?

 

[PatCarrington]

LOL

Fine, but if that's your final word, I'll have to read it as a decision you made through rationalisation and that you will never change, even if it doesn't hold water. The photograph can be as much a metaphor for the theme as the words themselves. It doesn't have to be the materialisation of those words, nor do the words have to be a description of the image.

The same rationalisation would apply - more than the books and movies thing - if you wanted to say that all stories should have no ending, because it would limit the theoretically endless number of endings your mind might generate.

most written stories don't have endings in the strict sense of "finality" the way a frozen photo does.

reading about someone walking off into the sunset is not the same as, nor as final as, nor as limiting as that picture of a lake with words scrawled across it that wildsweetone put up on this thread, for instance. in that photo, that's THE body of water the reader will see, period.

i think a photograph is too "limiting" by nature when compared to the written word, and therefore they do not jive well.

i realize that is a personal view and i do not espouse it as correct for anyone other than me, as i said early on.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

most written stories don't have endings in the strict sense of "finality" the way a frozen photo does.

reading about someone walking off into the sunset is not the same as, nor as final as, nor as limiting as that picture of a lake with words scrawled across it that wildsweetone put up on this thread, for instance. in that photo, that's THE body of water the reader will see, period.

i think a photograph is too "limiting" by nature when compared to the written word, and therefore they do not jive well.

The photograph can be as much a metaphor for the theme as the words themselves. It doesn't have to be the materialisation of those words, nor do the words have to be a description of the image.

If there is a poem describing a lake accompanied by a photograph of a lake, I understand your point.

But asking you about my latest illustrated poem again, the words in it are not at all about any of the things objectively depicted by the photograph. So, where is that limitation?

 

[PatCarrington]

An open mind opens so many facets of life around us.

Perhaps Pat it would be worth you reading the poetry and getting the maximum you can from the words and then combining the poetry with the illustrations and seeing if it is possible to take your own realisations another step...?

my mind is so open i have a constant flow of air coming out my ears and nostrils.

your suggestions can't be done with superimposed poetry, such as the one you placed on this thread. you can't look at one without the other, at least i can't.

i appreciate good photography. but to me, a photograph is still, locked. it can be subtle, but it is there to see. words are fluid, and contain different types of subtleties.

it not a question of one being superior to the other, but a question of whether they marry well.

i think they are mismatched.

 

[Guest]

Stroke her, Pat! Stroke her, please, just a little, huh?

 

[PatCarrington]

Stroke her, Pat! Stroke her, please, just a liitle, huh?

yes, dear.

 

[PatCarrington]

The photograph can be as much a metaphor for the theme as the words themselves. It doesn't have to be the materialisation of those words, nor do the words have to be a description of the image.

If there is a poem describing a lake accompanied by a photograph of a lake, I understand your point.

But asking you about my latest illustrated poem again, the words in it are not at all about any of the things objectively depicted by the photograph. So, where is that limitation?

i don't understand the point of a visual metaphor for a theme that is already there in words. if the theme is already in the poem, wouldn't it make the photo redundant? if it isn't, why not put it there?

in that case, if forced to consider your photo along with the words, i would find it, at best, distracting.

i answer your question with a question....what does it add? it must add something. otherwise, why have it?

and if it does add something, why not do it with words?

this debate could be endless. i think it's a lot simpler than we're making it:

i don't like illustrated poetry, and you do. i don't think poetry (nor fiction) and photographs blend well together, and you do.

i see the oil and vinegar always separated, you see salad dressing.

 

[wildsweetone]

What you're saying simply means that what I feel has not been exactly conveyed into words, or it could be that what I feel is not something you wish to feel also...? I have work to do. I know that, and the way for me to work, to learn, is to continue writing until I achieve what I aim for.

(I am using I and me instead of the generalisation 'us')


A photograph is 'still, locked'?

To me that sounds like you haven't managed to open your soul to the possibilities that surround you...

In my opinion, a photograph has connotations that our minds can automatically jump to and that can drag emotions from us. The key is to meld the words and intermingle them with the picture so neither detract from the other and yet so both enhance the other.

I mean no offence, I enjoy discussion and have no intention of offending anyone.
<--- because a picture might convey my intent better than my words.

 

[Liar]

Hehe, I thought about tossing in a post or two there, but Lauren pretty much spoke my mind, so I didn't hafta.

But I think that a good illustrated poem can in fact open up for more intepretation than just the text would had. It's like combinatory topoi, the art of tickling the imagination by combining elelments that usually are not combined. This may sound like neo-aristotelian mumbo jumbo, but I think that you can look at an illustration in two ways: Either you see it as a filter, narrowing the scope of possible intepretations. This seems to be Pat's and 12's view for instance.

Mine is different. I don't see graphical elements (unless very obviously decorative ones) as that, but instead as the next dimension. An Y axis to the text's X axis, all of a sudden giving the piece of art a whole area of possible intepretations. Every possible intepretation of the text is A. Every possible intepretation of the image is B Every possible intepretation of them combined is then naturally AxB. A good illustration will open up for ways of seeing the poem that wasn't there without it.