Reply to comment

I believe that there is such a thing as abstract writing, but I think that words open the door to interpretation a little more unavoidably... possibly because most of us think more clearly in words than in pictures. I think that if you throw interpretation aside, poetry can easily be as abstract or non-representational as some art. All you have to do is take in in for the way it sounds or the way the images make you feel rather than try to understand what the author means by them. A poem that used only nonsense words to create sounds might be a good way to teach us to look at a poem without interpreting it and to simply get a feeling out of it.

However, I don't think that poetry, writing, or even art has the ability to be exempt from interpretation. I think our minds simply work that way. Art began as symbols. Pictures came before letters as a means of communication. Look at 17th and 18th century art and you will  see common symbols and themes that were placed in the paintings specifically to mean or represent a certain thing. I think we still look for those.

I have a poetry class that spends the entire class period each day interpreting one or two poems. I don't think that this is a bad thing though. By communicating our interpretations to one another we are learning the many different ways of reading a piece of poetry. We are gaining more free will.

Of course, Whitman seems to be an exception. He doesn't insist on analysis... but in order for us to see that... we have to interpret his poem.