Andrey's questions about poems (split from the intro thread)

[AndreyGaganov]

The poet's intent has very little to do with the way it is received.

This makes no sense to me at all. If a poet puts love and care into a poem because he has an idea for it, be it the meaning of the poem or how it sounds, then doesn't he want every reader/reciter/listener to take notice of the poem's objective, the very thing that the poet holds dear? This very same statement leaves me unsure of which is more important: what the poet wants out of his/her poem or how the reader receives it. And if we grant this proposition that the poet's intent is subordinate to how the poem can be received, then why on earth would the author write the poem in the first place? 

A fine poet with a careful hand will match up at least one set of meanings with the reader, ... .

Can't the poet just make his/her thoughts/feelings clear with one set of meanings (one for every metaphor as a shortcut to an overarching idea)? 

... but the subtleties that exist due to different experiences, cultures and emotions are where true poetry lies.

By that do you mean "clues that paint the rest of the picture within a certain context"? Can't that still be accomplished with prose? 

Poetry is the skill to draw windows where previously only walls existed.

I need an example. 

Yes, a poet could explicate things - but why?

Because clarity to convey a message matters. Doesn't it?

The beauty of poetry is the way it allows the reader to come to his/her own realisations on the nature of the world, the universe and the human condition. One could tell, via lecture, or one can show, via poetry.

OK. What you are saying is that the objective of a poet is not to make a specific statement (unlike what Randall Jarrell did, which makes matters all the more puzzling), but to merely paint a picture and let the reader make an impression of it. But how is that to poetry's advantage when the same can be done in prose? 

If all you want is to be told what and how to think, in plain and unambiguous language, then poetry will never be the medium for you.

Why would I want that and what author of prose ever did that? An author of prose can state an opinion or paint a picture and let the reader/reciter/listener do the rest. Where is the confinement/conformity in that?