Imagery

[cward2]

I've been thinking about and reading a lot of poetry lately and was wondering about imagery when writing poetry.
Is it better to have more concrete images that the reader will 'get' quicker than to have more abstract (dare I say 'poetic') images and leave the reader to figure it out a lot longer?
I'm a little confused on this!

 

[Angeline]

I've been thinking about and reading a lot of poetry lately and was wondering about imagery when writing poetry.
Is it better to have more concrete images that the reader will 'get' quicker than to have more abstract (dare I say 'poetic') images and leave the reader to figure it out a lot longer?
I'm a little confused on this!

Hi cward.

I think the ideal is to balance the two And concrete images don't have to be simplistic or unpoetic, imo: they just have to convey something that the reader can sense (e.g., feel, hear, see).

Reading a poem that is just an intellectual exercise leaves me feeling empty. I want heart with my brains.

I think this is a good example of a poem that takes something ordinary and moves back and forth between concrete and abstract imagery.

A Lemon
Pablo Neruda

Out of lemon flowers
loosed
on the moonlight, love's
lashed and insatiable
essences,
sodden with fragrance,
the lemon tree's yellow
emerges,
the lemons
move down
from the tree's planetarium

Delicate merchandise!
The harbors are big with it-
bazaars
for the light and the
barbarous gold.
We open
the halves
of a miracle,
and a clotting of acids
brim
into the starry
divisions:
creation's
original juices,
irreducible, changeless,
alive:
so the freshness lives on
in a lemon,
in the sweet-smelling house of the rind,
the proportions, arcane and acerb.

Cutting the lemon
the knife
leaves a little cathedral:
alcoves unguessed by the eye
that open acidulous glass
to the light; topazes
riding the droplets,
altars,
aromatic facades.

So, while the hand
holds the cut of the lemon,
half a world
on a trencher,
the gold of the universe
wells
to your touch:
a cup yellow
with miracles,
a breast and a nipple
perfuming the earth;
a flashing made fruitage,
the diminutive fire of a planet.

 

[wildsweetone]

I've been thinking about and reading a lot of poetry lately and was wondering about imagery when writing poetry.
Is it better to have more concrete images that the reader will 'get' quicker than to have more abstract (dare I say 'poetic') images and leave the reader to figure it out a lot longer?
I'm a little confused on this!

i know that when i read or write a poem that does not have concrete images, it feels much like a first wash of colour on a water colour canvas.

 

[Guest]

hello c,

I agree with both Ange and WSO - both have a place. Avoiding cliche is what's important.

 

[flyguy69]

I miss a lot of threads these days. Sorry about that, cward2—you asked a good question.

There is nothing inherent about “abstract v. concrete” that makes a poem hard to understand (though individual images may be). Abstractions are images or metaphors that lack an experiential foundation for readers. They can be hard to understand because the reader cannot arrive at a meaningful image from which to draw a poetic intent. But not always.

If I were to use the phrase “a thankful wind of time” in a poem it would be an abstraction (and you should slap my hand for it!) because there is no clear connection between any of the words. You can’t create in your mind a picture of any such wind. But it is not hard to understand—you would probably pull the individual words apart and conclude that I was saying something about changes in gratitude with the passage of time. But where is the poetry in forcing readers to dissect the image for meaning? Shouldn’t the sum mean more than the parts?

On the other hand, concrete images don’t de facto make a poem easy to understand. On another thread someone posted this poem (excerpted) and called it “abstract.”

First my penis grew out of thousands of trees, then everything on the planet dizzy-ed up and began revolving and revolving around all our penises, and our penises shot millions of words into the poem and the words became nuclear missiles ….
Copyright 2004 by Wolf Larsen. All Rights Reserved.

They are entirely wrong—this poem isn’t the least bit abstract. It is surreal, certainly, but images like penises growing from trees are concrete because we can all picture one even if (I hope) we have never seen one. But that doesn’t make the poem easy to understand because I don’t know what a tree penis is supposed to convey. This particular poem seems to be about a dream, so the author is probably not concerned with the poem “making sense.”

Concrete imagery is harder (and, IMO, better) to write than abstract is, because the writer must look for and employ the common real-world experiences that tie us together. It requires discipline and effort to take those images and use them to guide a reader’s thinking into new territory.

 

[wildsweetone]

flyguy said: On the other hand, concrete images don’t de facto make a poem easy to understand. On another thread someone posted this poem (excerpted) and called it “abstract.”
Quote:
First my penis grew out of thousands of trees, then everything on the planet dizzy-ed up and began revolving and revolving around all our penises, and our penises shot millions of words into the poem and the words became nuclear missiles ….
Copyright 2004 by Wolf Larsen. All Rights Reserved.

They are entirely wrong—this poem isn’t the least bit abstract. It is surreal, certainly, but images like penises growing from trees are concrete because we can all picture one even if (I hope) we have never seen one. But that doesn’t make the poem easy to understand because I don’t know what a tree penis is supposed to convey. This particular poem seems to be about a dream, so the author is probably not concerned with the poem “making sense.”

fly, what you say makes sense, however, the image i have in my head of Wolf Larsen's poem reminds me of abstract art.

 

[bogusbrig]

Concrete imagery is harder (and, IMO, better) to write than abstract is, because the writer must look for and employ the common real-world experiences that tie us together. It requires discipline and effort to take those images and use them to guide a reader’s thinking into new territory.

I have to disagree with you here Fly. I think abstractions are far harder to write well than concrete imagery. To write abstract well the writer needs to be well read and have a full arsenal of tools. I liken it to to a talented draughtsman and an intellectual artist. The talented draughtsman can shoot from the hip and has a talent for drawing realistic imagery. The abstract artist has to think beyond the imagery and perform intellectual acrobatics and the art usually ends up more interesting and engaging as a result. To create beautiful poetic associations is just that and once one has absorbed the cleverness of the imagery there is little left to engage with. I think the best work combines the two but given the ultimatum to choose between one or the other, I would choose abstraction because I find it more satisfying. But hey! That's just me.

 

[flyguy69]

I have to disagree with you here Fly. I think abstractions are far harder to write well than concrete imagery. To write abstract well the writer needs to be well read and have a full arsenal of tools. I liken it to to a talented draughtsman and an intellectual artist. The talented draughtsman can shoot from the hip and has a talent for drawing realistic imagery. The abstract artist has to think beyond the imagery and perform intellectual acrobatics and the art usually ends up more interesting and engaging as a result. To create beautiful poetic associations is just that and once one has absorbed the cleverness of the imagery there is little left to engage with. I think the best work combines the two but given the ultimatum to choose between one or the other, I would choose abstraction because I find it more satisfying. But hey! That's just me.

I concede the point! I guess I have such an anti-abstraction bias that I never considered "writing them well" as an option.

Although I would not concede "usually ends up more interesting and engaging." But that's just me!

 

[flyguy69]

fly, what you say makes sense, however, the image i have in my head of Wolf Larsen's poem reminds me of abstract art.

Do you mean "abstract art," or "surrealism"? Who are some artitists that poem brings to mind?

 

[wildsweetone]

my apologies i meant surrealism, but in an abstract kind of way.



carry on.

 

[flyguy69]

LOL! Your av is turning me to concrete....

my apologies i meant surrealism, but in an abstract kind of way.



carry on.

 

[wildsweetone]

concrete on a body board is probably not a good thing...

 

[flyguy69]

It does improve steering, however.

 

[wildsweetone]

mind the sharks

 

[flyguy69]

mind the sharks

Yeah, the coral's a bitch, too. Ouch! Was that submarine?

 

[wildsweetone]

Carol's a bitch? okay, i'll keep my eye out for her.




whilst joking, all this is conjuring up some interesting images. don't you think?