(no subject)
From 
redundantcliche's journal:
"Poetry is meant to be spoken or sung. We do violence when read it silently." -my Spanish 120A course reader
I can actually go both ways with this. Reading anything silently, whether it be stories or poetry, is inherently a personal experience. All you have are letters on a page, and it is up to you to give them meaning and life. When you read a book, images form in your head of how the characters should look, what they're doing, where they are, etc.
Then someone comes along and makes a movie out of said book, and suddenly you are jarred out of this wonderful illusion you had created in your mind, and forced to see another person's interpretation of the same words. Often they are not the same. The same goes for poetry; when a person reads it aloud, they are imposing their interpretation on the inflection of the words, the timing of the lines, they are putting themselves into the author's purpose, and the audience is forced into the reader's imagery, and not the author's pure intent. It is a tainted reading.
Of course, if it is the author themself who is the reader or filmmaker, then it can be said that the listener is getting the "true" interpretation of the work. But there are times when even the author's own intent is in conflict with the reader's interpretation. Where, then, does the author's influence end, and the work become a product of the reader's imagination? Can an author exert complete influence over his or her intended audience? Or must an author always find a point where s/he relinquishes control of the images to the reader's mind?
I find this conflict often comes into play with new filmmakers (I'm going to keep going with the film allegory since that is my field of expertise). The young director has a vision of how s/he wants to portray a message to the audience, and is disappointed when the viewer interprets the message as something different entirely. Poetry, film, and symbolism in general are inherently ambiguous forms of expression, and anyone who attempts to wield these artforms must be aware of the potential for multiple interpretations. An artist who chooses creative metaphor needs to understand that their meaning will not always be deciphered if the symbols chosen are not rooted in the collective consciousness of human definition. Or if a new symbol of the author's choice is not properly defined within the context of the work (which is more often the case, as most creative types shy away from cliche).
Getting back to words, a spoken performance can help try to dispel confusion as to the proper meaning of a symbol; we can see evidence of this in a good performance of Shakespeare, where a high school class may have trouble understanding a play when reading it on their own, but they understand it when they go on a field trip to watch the play performed. The timing and inflection, the expression on the actors' faces, the staging and motion and volume and tone of voice all help to define the words on the page.
So if all those factors are required for an accurate reading of a poem, then how much purpose do the words themselves hold? Could you replace the words of a poem with nonsense, but keep everything else about the performance the same, and still be as effective in portraying your intent?
redundantcliche's journal:
"Poetry is meant to be spoken or sung. We do violence when read it silently." -my Spanish 120A course reader
I can actually go both ways with this. Reading anything silently, whether it be stories or poetry, is inherently a personal experience. All you have are letters on a page, and it is up to you to give them meaning and life. When you read a book, images form in your head of how the characters should look, what they're doing, where they are, etc.
Then someone comes along and makes a movie out of said book, and suddenly you are jarred out of this wonderful illusion you had created in your mind, and forced to see another person's interpretation of the same words. Often they are not the same. The same goes for poetry; when a person reads it aloud, they are imposing their interpretation on the inflection of the words, the timing of the lines, they are putting themselves into the author's purpose, and the audience is forced into the reader's imagery, and not the author's pure intent. It is a tainted reading.
Of course, if it is the author themself who is the reader or filmmaker, then it can be said that the listener is getting the "true" interpretation of the work. But there are times when even the author's own intent is in conflict with the reader's interpretation. Where, then, does the author's influence end, and the work become a product of the reader's imagination? Can an author exert complete influence over his or her intended audience? Or must an author always find a point where s/he relinquishes control of the images to the reader's mind?
I find this conflict often comes into play with new filmmakers (I'm going to keep going with the film allegory since that is my field of expertise). The young director has a vision of how s/he wants to portray a message to the audience, and is disappointed when the viewer interprets the message as something different entirely. Poetry, film, and symbolism in general are inherently ambiguous forms of expression, and anyone who attempts to wield these artforms must be aware of the potential for multiple interpretations. An artist who chooses creative metaphor needs to understand that their meaning will not always be deciphered if the symbols chosen are not rooted in the collective consciousness of human definition. Or if a new symbol of the author's choice is not properly defined within the context of the work (which is more often the case, as most creative types shy away from cliche).
Getting back to words, a spoken performance can help try to dispel confusion as to the proper meaning of a symbol; we can see evidence of this in a good performance of Shakespeare, where a high school class may have trouble understanding a play when reading it on their own, but they understand it when they go on a field trip to watch the play performed. The timing and inflection, the expression on the actors' faces, the staging and motion and volume and tone of voice all help to define the words on the page.
So if all those factors are required for an accurate reading of a poem, then how much purpose do the words themselves hold? Could you replace the words of a poem with nonsense, but keep everything else about the performance the same, and still be as effective in portraying your intent?