I may like piece that is well constructed metrically, or has great imagery, but if there is no meaning I can comprehend, the good feeling I get from it will fade away quickly. A meaningful piece, that makes me stop and think, will stay with me for a long time. Yes, it's best if a piece succeeds on several levels, but if meaning isn't one of the levels, then the piece's effect, for me, will not last.
Comparing poetry to a visual art can be educational. Let's look at the components of composition - color, line, shape, texture, contrast, detail etc. A photograph that uses one of these elements may capture a viewer's attention momentarily, but will not hold it. A photograph needs to make the viewer's eye move around the composition, finding new interesting components. This piece will hold the viewer's attention longer, and the viewer will take the photograph with them, mentally, when they leave.
What is poetry but painting a picture for the mind's eye, using words rather than paints or a camera? The elements still apply. Make a line graph out of the stresses in a piece - one with well placed contrasts in it will be more interesting than one with a steady wave pattern. Texture can be modified by the rhythym of a piece - it can be harsh, or soft. When imagery is used properly, I can visualize color and shape. Give me detail, and my mental picture becomes sharper.
If I see a photo that is just based on saturated color, I may say 'Neat!', and walk away. If I see a poem that's nothing but imagery, I might do the same thing - but I'll never remember it.
It's possible to 'like' a poem that has no real meaning, but I don't think it can make a real impression on the reader. Some idea has to be conveyed for that to happen.
|