Xword causes Yreaction when audience = b and author = a

Note: I’m picking on poetry here because of all forms, it is the most elusive. But my following comments could be applied to art in general.

Maybe because I was looking for a reason to give up on what had already proven to be an unfortunate read, but this section of The Book of Lazarus frothed all the ill-will I had toward (most) poetry:

I have seen that there is no predetermined direction to the birth of a word, that words move across the page like beams of random light moving through immense voids of wandering flares. Poems are built like jewels. (pg 434)

Really?

Explaining what poetry is with poetic language is cyclical and confusing. I do appreciate the meta aspect of doing this (truly, I do. See here). But defining an elusive concept with further metaphor doesn’t help to define anything. Yes, the above example is from a fiction text, so the reader should rightfully assume that the definition is more about developing a character than about providing an accurate definition of poetry. However, it seems this flowery style is exactly what demonizes poetry in the mind of the casual (possibly conservative) reader. The common conception of poetry is that it is easy and anyone can do it. There is an “all is right, nothing is wrong, so be yourself” therapeutic hippy aspect associated with poetry. Which is why I don’t count poetry as one of my favorite forms, despite my above understanding of any possible misconception or untruth; the stink is quite potent.

I’ve reached a point in my writing study where I am tired of intangibles (and I'm not the only one). I want repeatable data. I want the art effect to be measurable. I want to know that word x would elicit reaction y when audience = b and author = a. Can art be scientifically approached? I really want to say yes; we simply haven’t the capacity to do so yet. So, in my dream of measured effect, the above description of poetry elicits one thing well: vomit.

Xword causes Yreaction when audience = b and author = a

The first step in a measured effect would be to assign a value to both b and a. This, I understand, is both the first step and the impossible step (impossible, as we currently understand ourselves as a species). The author does not always understand his intentions, and even more-so, does not always know his audience. In a perfect world, an author will come to a story, poem, anything with years of self-awareness along with an understanding of his audience for that specific work. Perhaps this is why most authors get better the more they write, and why most authors don’t peak until middle-age or after.

Matchbook Lit mag has something good going. They require authors to post critical analyses of their work alongside the work itself. An artist’s statement, so-to-speak. This is important. This is likely necessary to keep writing respected in a world where anyone with an internet connection can post any drivel at any time to potentially hundreds of thousands of readers. In other words: just because someone can type and share words, does not mean he should. The artist's statement proves that there is at least honest intent behind the writing.

The bottom line is this: relying on interpretation makes for lazy artists. The burden of art should never be hoisted entirely upon the critic. Doing so creates a false formula, where a and/or b is missing. The more therapeutic hippy drivel out there, the less respected writing becomes. Simple.

And for all those university professors and doctors out there, who, I know, wrestle with this dilemma daily, think about this: how much easier would it be to acquire arts funding if we were able to rationalize the dollars with measured results?