"literal" clarity vs. symbolic clarity

[ellajam]

^^^ Well done.

Art in general I think of as meant for the interpretation of the person observing the art. If you are making a point with art, then it's probably better to leave art out of it and just make the point. There are exceptions, of course.

Even if I am expressing something singular that I have in mind, when it has emotional weight, I often have not gotten far in articulating what it is that I am expressing, to myself. I think that this is good, or not bad.

The other way around, often if something clearly articulated is expressed, the expression lacks emotional weight.

Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "literal meaning". Words only have meaning within a context and an era. They are like trends that say something to people in the know.

I am very new to paying anything but casual attention to poetry, and have a lot to read in this forum. Is a difference made here, often, about how literal the words of a poem are and how well formed, not necessarily clear, the symbolism is perceived to be, by the critic?

I haven't been here too long, but I've found this site to be pretty much open season.

Members are sensitive to various aspects of a poem. For some, an absent comma stands out like a sore thumb, some spot a beat of meter off, for some it's the turn of a word or rhyme, some feel it must have emotional content, some are rarely touched in that way.

What I love about this site is that the poet gets the benefit of all these different sensitivities in the various critiques. Sometimes they are at odds with each other, and even when they agree, it is up to the poet to consider them all and use or discard what suits their poem: an interesting challenge.