Hello, Sarah, I do like l2, its idiosyncracy sounds very much in keeping with your art here and work overall, l1 less so. What I worry a little with these is that at times you're forced to add modifiers to get the beat up to five. Example, here and later on, "starry" is quite a Romantic, dare I say almost outworn way of describing gods (I've just read through a long selected poems of Shelley, and "starry" repeats itself there like a slogan), it doesn't sit well with the more destabilising, surrealistic mode I associate with your work.
I like your break on "echo/champber" even though it does create a headless l4. I'd cut "Here", to my ear it sounds to self-consciously tour-guide-esque. Considering all this, I wonder if you need this much description at all, is the poetry doing the work that the images are already? "hot blues stars and hyacinth", sounds much better, stronger, more strange as "feast on stars and hyacinth", beware of over-writing here I think, especially with ekphrastics.
"words run wilder than the eyes of owls" is all over the place metrically, one too many substitutions. You might consider cleaning it up a little.
I do like these, but I also wonder at their purpose. Why do you need such heavy description when you have the pictures? At their best they are revealing something we would not understand from mere viewing, like the god of underwear and immaterial culture (a real highlight), but I wonder if the lines could be improved by making them sparser and less heavily descriptive.
Hope this helps.
|