in poetry?!
I personally have the tendency to write poetry naturally without punctuation.
I seem to prefer the flow that way and also it gives the reader the choice to decide to punctuate or not mentally for themselves.
Discuss
Printable View
in poetry?!
I personally have the tendency to write poetry naturally without punctuation.
I seem to prefer the flow that way and also it gives the reader the choice to decide to punctuate or not mentally for themselves.
Discuss
It depends on whether the lack of punctuation is for effect, or simply due to laziness or ignorance.
Text without punctuation, whether prose and poetry, is easier to write but harder to read. Punctuation adds nuance and clarity, and if you're going sacrifice these in punctuation, you'd better be supplying them in other ways.
Here in the UK lots of people are now lazy about punctuation, largely because they were never taught it properly. On forums, if I come across a post without punctuation or written in text speak, I just skip it. Life's too short. If someone wants their stuff to be read, they can help me out by not leaving all the hard work to me.
I agree. I prefer the use of punctuation in poetry. I found through experience that most poetry profits from shape and meaning. IMO punctuation goes a far distance in aiding that.
I try to use correct punctuation and spelling in either prose or poetry, because I want the reader to focus on the content of the text.
Edit: I've been in discussions on other forums where poets will complain when other poets capitalize the first letter of the line or even put a line break at the end of the line of poetry. Both of these are extra forms of punctuation that are not used in prose. I use both, because I suspect the reader expects to see them. However, if I removed all line breaks and initial capital letters I hope what I write would pass an MS Word grammar check.
Interesting... I write poetry and, although I use many poetic conventions, I don't use capital letters at the starts of lines. In a way I feel I should, because I'm a bit of a traditionalist; but when I tried it, the poems looked archaic because it's so uncommon these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
As for line breaks... How can you write poetry without line breaks? They are fundamental to the structure of a poem, and are also a way of adding pauses where no explicit punctuation would be appropriate. Some of the most brilliant poetic effects are due to well-placed line breaks; however, a lot of poets just apply them arbitrarily, when a line has reached the length of the line above it.
I think the appearance of a poem on the page is very important, and it's why a lot of brilliant poems lose so much of their effect when read out loud (at least if you've never seen them written down).
I don't trust MS Word's grammar checker as far as I could throw it :)Quote:
However, if I removed all line breaks and initial capital letters I hope what I write would pass an MS Word grammar check.
If you know Thai, or even little bit of it, you know that there's no capitalization or punctuation. It's all in the context. And though that would be annoying and impractical in English (as we're so used to punctuation and capitalization) I think it's doable for any language. In fact, isn't true that capitalization and punctuation, in the West, were invented for the sake of the printing press' convenience? (Which would mean that there's no correlation to impeccable use of punctuation and capitalization to literary ability, and there isn't.)
Having said that, I can't stand abnormal punctuation and capitalization in prose, poetry or whatever. Nothing should shift the focus from the use of the words themselves, their unique combination or lack thereof, when appraising poetry.
Just because something is artificial does not mean that it does not acquire meaning and power. The whole written language is a mere convenience for communication - but it makes types of communication possible that would not be possible with only the spoken word. The written word increases the subtlety of a language, and punctuation in turn increases the subtlety of the written word.Quote:
Originally Posted by My2cents
That's a sweeping statement. Certainly there are people who can punctuate perfectly who couldn't write a story or poem to save their lives. Conversely, there are people with a natural feeling for language who can't, or don't bother to, punctuate properly - though I think such people are rare. I suppose you could say Eminem shows a certain crude flair for language, and I imagine (maybe I'm wrong?) he isn't too interested in punctuation. But then, his medium is the spoken word, and we're talking about literature.Quote:
(Which would mean that there's no correlation to impeccable use of punctuation and capitalization to literary ability, and there isn't.)
In general, a good writer uses punctuation as one of the tools of the trade. So I would have to disagree that there is no correlation.
^^^^
My point is that punctuation is remedial stuff. If punctuation is the focus, then obviously what's at issue isn't art.
It is easy to write poetry without line breaks--just remove them. If the poem is metrical, the sound of it should allow the listener to put in those breaks if desired. If it is not, Baudelaire already set the structure for prose poems.Quote:
Originally Posted by FranzS
Admittedly poems look like flash fiction without the line breaks, but removing the line breaks has a value for both metrical and non-metrical poetry. If one is writing nonsense, it is harder to hide.
Actually, I don't trust it either, but I like how it points out potential problems that might require a rewriting.Quote:
Originally Posted by FranzS
Yeah but I find poetry without line breaks is like short stories without paragraphs. It's a put off for most readers. If we have to plough through something because the writer couldn't be bothered setting their work out in the proper format, why would we give it the attention they think it deserves? IMO the writer is using less energy and shifting it to the reader.
I agree. People expect the line breaks, so why not give it to them?
That's like suggesting the quality of materials used in producing a painting or a sculpture isn't relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by My2cents
No, what I'm suggesting is punctuation is to addition,subtraction, division, and multiplication as calculus, linear algebra, and advanced math is to art, poetry, and fiction. It goes without saying that anyone doing art, poetry, and fiction has mastered the rudiments of language, which punctuation is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Really? That's quite an assumption on your part. I take it you're not assuming that only those who would dabble in such arts are all educated are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by My2cents
I don't know what's so hard to understand. Poetry and fiction are the highest forms of writing, meaning to do them WELL punctuation shouldn't even be issue to the extent you would need a schoolmarm telling you at every turn how to parse the sentence with a comma, a semicolon or what not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
Yes but the question of whether punctuation is important in poetry is the issue in this forum. Perhaps we've misunderstood each other and are talking at cross purposes. I'm a stickler for punctuation and applying it in poetry is an element of the art itself since as you say we should have mastered the language, with all its remedial stuff. To omit such things as line breaks, punctuation and capital letters is to admit one's own lack of mastery.
What the hell does that mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by My2cents
lol. Meaning a shopping list is the lowest :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Jair
If I were writing poetry, I'd write more or less in full sentences with all the obligatory punctuations and orthography. I kind of doubt however it'll be as good as William Carlos Williams' "Red Wheelbarrow."Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta40
It means they're not easy to write unlike your fatuous remark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jair
That's one poem I don't like (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-red-wheelbarrow/) but it is an example of line breaks splitting up the following sentence:Quote:
Originally Posted by My2cents
So much depends upon a red wheelbarrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens.
If I put the sentence into MS Word there are no grammar check complaints. So, it passes my grammar check condition. Then comes the next test which really isn't part of this thread on punctuation--does it say anything interesting? I would claim that it doesn't. Of course, I'm no expert.
Funnily enough, now you've written that without line breaks, I prefer it to the original poem. It's more immediate, somehow - in fact this is the first time I've had a clear image of the whole scene in my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I don't think the poem is a masterpiece; it's famous because it's original and provocative, not because it's a manifestation of great artistic skill.
Does it say anything interesting? It conveys those moments of inexplicable visionary intensity we sometimes feel in response to scenes or stimuli. In these situations, we "feel" a meaning, but we can't say what the meaning is.
As I say, I prefer it without the line breaks, which seem arbitrary to me, and disturb the rhythm of the sentence. Of course, if he'd written it without line breaks, publishers would have said, "Get out of here, that's not a poem!"
While we're on the subject of William Carlos Williams, I think his poem "This Is Just To Say" does benefit from unconventional punctuation. Why does he not punctuate the last stanza, which would make it look like this? -
Forgive me.
They were delicious
- so sweet
and so cold.
Something is lost here - the punctuation makes the poet seem rational and reasonable, really wanting to explain himself. The actual poem, on the other hand, produces a trance-like impression, emphasising the sense that the poet just couldn't help himself:
Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so cold.
Obviously, the double meanings of the words "sweet" and "cold" are the key to this poem, and the lack of punctuation emphasises the sense of ambiguity. I think it's brilliant.
Linebreaking is a form of punctuation.
He is probably going to get his butt kicked for eating those plums. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FranzS
I see the "sweet" and "cold" might be a way to characterize his wife as well. Prior to eating the plums, she might be "sweet". Afterwards, perhaps "cold".
However, what I have done in the above paragraph is added meaning that was not in the poem to complete it. Nowhere does he mention a wife or that she was even happy being with him before he ate the plums. These additions are what the poem lacks, but I would claim should have included.
Regarding the punctuation, in this case the poem could be read aloud to someone and so they wouldn't even need to see it on the page. I think where the issue of punctuation matters is where the poem makes little sense without viewing it or attempting to read it.
Yes, it could be considered a form of punctuation defining that as any visual way the words are placed on a page.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I think the issue with punctuation and, especially non-metrical, poetry goes back to the old manual typewriter in which you inserted a piece of paper. The range of formatting that such a manual typewriter could make with a poem is considered part of the poem. So if the poet does a carriage return, that is part of the poem although it would not be part of the prose written on that typewriter.
Any other formatting seen today such as font or color would not be considered part of the poem and it would be left to the editor who prints the poem or displays it on the internet to decide how best to do that.
Hm. I don't buy that, to be honest. The poem doesn't need completing. The meaning is quite clear: it's making a statement about the poet, not about his partner (or whoever the owner of the plums is). If you add in commentary on the partner, you are missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
It's really very subtle, because the poet goes immediately from apologising, to recalling the deliciousness of the plums: he can't even think about the other person long enough to properly apologise. The tone of the poem is both "sweet" and "cold": there is a calculated charm to the poet's confession, but the last lines show that he feels no real remorse for his misdemeanour. The words "sweet" and "cold" seem to pop into his head as a subconcious verdict on his own behaviour.
Thrice NO! The punctuation and line breaks are crucial. YES, you can understand the meaning of the sentences if you hear the poem read aloud, but the punctuation and line breaks add another level of subtlety, and turn it into a poem.Quote:
Regarding the punctuation, in this case the poem could be read aloud to someone and so they wouldn't even need to see it on the page. I think where the issue of punctuation matters is where the poem makes little sense without viewing it or attempting to read it.
It's essential, in order to properly appreciate poetry, to concentrate not just on MEANING but also on EFFECT. In other words, you have to "listen", not simply read; you have to watch what feelings and images surface from your subconscious as you read.
Above all, the reader shouldn't rush into assuming they understand a poem. If they interpret it as a bunch of easily comprehensible but uninteresting statements, maybe they have missed something.
Note to moderators: I notice that two of my posts have been amalgamated into a single post (#21). Is this normal practice? I wanted to make two separate, easily-digestible points, not cram everything I had to say into a single long post. Is this not approved of?
I can't remember at the moment how it was punctuated but I do remember the fact that he ate the plums before breakfast.Quote:
Originally Posted by FranzS
I agree with you about the need to use the subconscious, and we do that without really being conscious of it.
Hey, it's up to the writer.
OK perhaps a bad example.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Then what about Ezra Pound's "In the Station of the Metro." I mean does it really matter that he's putting a period at the end of the poem or not? (strict punctuation rules would dictate no period as the poem isn't even a sentence.) And according to MS Word, the poem is grammatically and punctuation wise a no-no.
As to "The Red Wheelbarrow," I think it's a fine poem with an indelible imagery which in itself is enough in a poem of what--21 syllables(?)
agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jajdude
I think the punctuation is up to the publisher, not the writer. For most poems the writer and publisher are the same person. We write the poem and then we publish it on forum like Lit Net. When someone else publishes our poetry, then the roles split.Quote:
Originally Posted by jajdude
To look at this differently, consider the following poem:
Mary had a little lamb.
Its fleece was white as snow
And everywhere that Mary went,
The lamb was sure to go.
Is the following a different poem just because it is presented differently?
mary had a little lamb its fleece was white as snow
and everywhere that mary went the lamb was sure to go
Or is the following a different poem?
MARY had a little lamb.
Itsfleecewas white as snow
and everywhere
that MARY went, the
lamb was sure to go.
You're right that what Pound wrote does not pass the MS Word grammar check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_Station_of_the_MetroQuote:
Originally Posted by My2cents
However, I'm not the one who likes it, so it doesn't matter to me whether he puts a period there or not.
C'mon, don't be an ogre. Give them (Pound and Williams) their due even if you have to pretend. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I enjoy pretending. It's a very valuable way to knowledge, however, it doesn't always lead where one's intellect expects it should, which is why it is useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by My2cents
I'm not sure what we were discussing or if we are really on different sides in some argument. :)
My position is that I don't much care about the punctuation of a poem. I put in initial caps and line breaks because I am guessing that is what a reader or an editor wants to see, but they are unimportant to the poem. I'd conform to whatever style sheet is required.
What is your position on this?
Sometimes punctuation in poetry is important to avoid ambiguity. Personally, I'd use it if it has a 'poetic role' and not because it is an obligation.
Personally, I'll mind all my Qs and Ps and dot all my Is and Ts if only to avoid drawing attention to the strange formatting.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
But, I'm convinced punctuation has more to do with convenience than art. A true artist can take liberties with it and make it (the punctuation) irrelevant.
I think we basically agree, My2cents.
Whatever a poet decides to include in a poem is important; whatever a poet decides not to include in a poem is important. If any part of the technique and form, including punctuation or lack thereof, isn't working for the poem it's working against it. It's really as simple as that. I like the extra dynamic that punctuation gives to a piece. They give you greater control over rhythm, over a reader's thoughts (what words they pause on, eg), over how connected the various clauses are, etc. I think punctuation is most valuable in metrical poetry where meter determines where the line ends. When meter is determining that you need something to control the clauses and sentences across multiple lines. In free verse, line breaks can become an all purpose punctuation device, and the lack of punctuation gives emphasis to the importance of the line break and the ambiguity between lines. The great free verse poets almost always use that ambiguity of line breaking punctuation to its fullest advantage. Another approach to no punctuation is a poet like WS Merwin who uses the lack of punctuation to recreate the fluid dynamicism of a mind in thought.
My reason for capitalizing the first words of new lines is mostly one of laziness: I do it because Word auto-caps the first word whenever I start a new line! This is actually one of the few aspects of poetry I've never given much thought to. I see the capping of first words of lines as a stylistic thing more so than a formal one, but, to me, I think it almost looks stranger to see a line begin uncapped than capped... maybe because the idea of uncapping the beginnings of the line makes something read more like prose, so I'm instantly aware that the line of prose was just "snapped," as to where if it's capped it seems like it's starting a new thought, even if the thought is actually running on from the last line.Quote:
Originally Posted by FranzS
Punctuation isn't remedial in the hands of masters. Sure, if you just want to use it in the most basic, traditional way possible it's remedial, but I often find myself pausing and asking myself whether it's better to put a comma in or leave it out, or whether a period or semi-colon is better, or whatnot. At such points it is very much about the art because I'm trying to decide which choice will enhance the feeling/idea I'm trying to get across. Really, any component that is apart of an art-form is, well, part of the art itself, so to say that focusing on punctuation means the "issue isn't the art" seems nonsensical to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by My2cents
Red Wheelbarrow is one of those poems a reader cannot possibly hope to appreciate if they don't really take the time to analyze its form, and it really is an ingenious experiment in the possibilities of expressive ambiguity in free-verse poetry and imagism. Like the best poetry, it can be analyzed from several angles, but, at it's core, I really see it as a poem that uses form to find a perfect balance between chaos and order and, depending on what elements you analyze, it can seem perfectly orderly, or completely chaotic.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
If you analyze it in terms of stanzas, lines or word-count it's perfectly orderly: There are 8 lines of 4 stanzas of 2 lines each (2, 4, 8), and there is a consistent pattern of 3 words/1 word for each stanza (note how the 1 and 3 fills in the gap between 2 and 4). However, if you analyze it in terms of rhythm or syllables, it breaks down into chaos. The rhythm begins as perfect iambs: so MUCH dePENDS uPON, but by the next stanza we're alreadying deviating: a RED WHEEL / BARrow. The third is different again: GLAZED with RAIN / WATer. The fourth is different again as well: beSIDE the WHITE / CHICKens. Likewise, the syllable count goes: 4/2, 3/2, 3/2, 4/2, so there is an order of sorts here, but the 4/2 & 3/2 difference means there's no consistency (so let's call it a median between chaos and order). Note also how if you add these syllables up you get 5 or 6 total syllables in each stanza, so now we have a pattern of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 going in terms of words, total lines, total stanzas, and lines-per-stanza; what about 7? The only place seven is found is in the letters, and there's only one word that has 7 letters: depends, and is it accidental that the ONLY verb in the whole poem fills out the 1-8 pattern with 7 letters? I don't think so, but everyone can decide for themselves (it's also interesting to note how "depends" ends with "ends," but I'm more likely to chalk that up to legitimate coincidence).
But if this is looking at the minutest of details, perhaps a more relevant illustration of the order/chaos relationship is what is created by the line breaks. The poem begins in the realm of the entirely predictable: So much depends / upon. Now, I say predictable because every time you hear someone say "something depends" it is always followed by "on" or "upon", so at the first line break we KNOW what the next word is going to be. But there's also an expectation created by the stanza itself: "so much depends upon," so as readers we think, "gee, I wonder what could be so important that so much will depend upon it?"
The next stanza seems to begin to fulfill that expectation: "a red wheel" Now, wheels ARE important things, and have been used as metaphors for the things that turn the universe (ala in William Blake). Red is also a color of great urgency with its association with things like blood. But note what happens with the line break and next word here: barrow. Not "red wheel," but "red wheelbarrow." What we thought was a standalone noun turned out to be the first half of another noun of a completely different device. Notice how this change has also given us our first concrete image: the first stanza is entirely image free, and L1 of S2 is abstract enough, with only its "red wheel," to not be a very precise image. But now with the "red wheelbarrow" we have something entirely tangible, and, not only that, rather mundane. So there's a bit of a shock that we went from "so much depends upon" and the "red wheel" to a simple wheelbarrow.
The third stanza continues this "downward spiral" from the intuited grandness as "glazed with rain" does nothing but fill out the image of the wheelbarrow. But, yet again, our expectations are flustered by the line break, as it's not "glazed with rain" but "glazed with rain water". Here, what we thought was a noun (rain) turns out to be an adjective. Finally, S4 is the ultimate reality grounding. The stanza itself begins with a preposition, for the first time giving us a sense of real space. Note how the first preposition "upon" is an "upward" looking preposition, similar to how the stanza is suggesting something "upward" looking and grand, while "beside" is a horizontal looking preposition, suggesting something along a plane rather than above it, so we've both "come down" and "spread out" in our vision. But L1 of S4 also ends with a clear adjective in "white." For the first time the line ending leaves us with an obviously incomplete thought. So we've gone from the predictability of "depends / upon," to the sneaky ambiguity of "wheel / barrow" and "rain / water," to now, finally, the overt ambiguity of "white". The fact that we end with "chickens" as the last word to a poem that begins with "so much depends upon" is rather comical if you stop and think about it.
If William K. Wimstatt was right when he said that sophistication of form is sophistication of thought, then Red Wheelbarrow IS sophistication of thought, primarily in how it manipulates a reader's intuitive response to the words through its careful patterns and line-breaks. It takes us from the lofty and abstract to the mundane and tangible, from the predictable to failed predictability to complete unpredictability, all while balancing our sense of order and chaos. If that doesn't count as poetic genius, I don't know what does.
I agree with you, MorpheusSandman, about the use of capitals at the beginning of the line. I would carry it further to all punctuation including line breaks and leave those decisions with the editor or publisher or illustrator--that is, with any of the people involved with the final visual product.
We probably take different views on this because of what we see poetry as being. In your case, I think, poetry involves some visual element whereas in mine it is sound and meaning with very little if any visual component.
Regarding Red Wheelbarrow, it reminds me of a sermon I once heard by a Protestant pastor. The pastor recited two sentences from some Gospel text. After I heard those I wondered how is it possible for anyone to entertain and instruct an audience for 40 minutes on that, but he did. He showed how the text related to salvation history going all the way back to Genesis and emphasized that humans are not righteous in themselves among other things. He was a good lecturer and left the people listening to him with something to associate the words in the text to. He gave them what they came there to hear.
The same thing happens with the Red Wheelbarrow. It is a canonical text and spending a lot of time going over it because of its stature allows the reader to add many things to it that might not be in the text but might be interesting patterns worth noting. Those seeking information about the poem would expect to receive pretty much what you provided.
In the end, I would ask myself is there enough meaning in the text to justify one reading it without the added information and I would still have to say that there isn't.
To ignore the visual element of poetry is to ignore almost the entirety of free verse where line breaks dominate over meter and rhyme. In metrical poetry you're correct that the aural element is vastly more important than the visual one, and considering the majority of my writing is metrical I am certainly not one to marginalize the aural elements of poetry. In fact, I very much agree with Auden and Eliot when they talked about how their writing as primarily focused on the rhythm of the language. I always liked Auden's quote that his ideal reader "keeps a look out for curious prosodic fauna like bacchics and choriambs." I'm also a big user (perhaps abuser, depending on whom you ask) of alliteration, assonance, and consonance. However, if you don't learn to appreciate visual elements like line breaks and what this can add to how we react/interpret a poem then you're simply missing out. A great poet like Milton even understood the importance of line breaks in Paradise Lost and made usage of the ambiguities created by line endings all the while writing in verse. I've listened to PL read by Anton Lesser, and there is something lost if you JUST listen to it but don't read along with it and pause slightly at the end of lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
This just annoys the hell out of me... it's possible for anyone who doesn't like a poem to completely ignore any critical analysis of it by saying the same thing. It's nothing but a display of lazy hand waving, a way to avoid engaging with a work and critic intelligently and substantially. It's just too easy to label any interpretation of a work you don't like as "over-interpretation," and then dismiss it as "reading too much into a text" and "adding what isn't there." See, if you really think I've "over-interpreted" Red Wheelbarrow then it behooves you to actually point out what in my interpretation "isn't actually there in the text." Most of what I wrote is actually there, undeniably there. It's not even interpretation but observation. The various numerical patterns, eg, are not "imagined." Were they intended? I don't have any idea. I think it would be a remarkable coincidence if they weren't. It's hardly unheard of that poets pay attention to numerical symmetry in their poetry. In fact, the entire idea of symmetry is one of the oldest ones in the arts, but one that still resonates today both in practice and criticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
You talk about "meaning in the text" as if the important thing about poetry is some abstract meaning that you can just extract and separate from form: it's not. Cleanth Brooks pretty much buried this notion in The Well-Wrought Urn and, especially, his "The Heresy of Paraphrase" essay. Plus, with the advent of post-structuralism critics have come to realize that poetry is as much about emphasizing the signifier (the materiality of words) over the signified (the meaning, semantics). So much of poetry exists to frustrate penetrating the words to get to the "meaning," and in the wake of that confusion arises a greater awareness of the effect of language and form itself. If all you do with a poem like Red Wheelbarrow is look at the "prose sense" of the meaning then, you're correct, there is no significant meaning. But the important thing isn't this prose-sense meaning, but how the form makes us react to and interpret the words. If the form is having no effect on how you're reading a poem, then you're not even reading poetry. Red Wheelbarrow is a lovely embodiment of the whole imagist and free-verse aesthetic. It emphasizes how abstracts are predictable, but how the concrete materiality of images are powerful, striking, and unpredictable. One can't read that poem without seeing the thing being described, and it's a perfect example of WCW's "No ideas but in things." The poem begins with an idea, but ends with a thing that frustrates that idea, and frustrates our ability to connect the thing to the idea.
I do think a poem should be displayed visually well on the page. This certainly adds value to the poem and to the reader's enjoyment. This goes way beyond adding line breaks or initial caps. However, I think that is the role of the illustrator or whatever one calls the person creating the layout of the page. It is not the poet's job unless the poet is also the publisher. Also a poem that is recorded should be recited or sung by someone who can perform that task best, and that is not always the poet, especially if singing is involved. This gets a lot of people involved in the final work of art and makes it more than a solitary task. But I may be wrong.
My apologies for annoying you about my dislike for the Red Wheelbarrow. I think Williams did intend the patterns that you mentioned. However, I don't find form that interesting whether it be free verse or some metrical form. I see form as a tool to convey a message to the reader or audience in a pleasing manner. It is the message not the form that matters. But again, I may be wrong.
Edit: When you say "One can't read that poem without seeing the thing being described", I wonder if that is true. Suppose someone provided an illustration of a red wheelbarrow to go with the poem. When you read the poem, that illustration would be in your mind and it would be an image. Without it, you have an idea of a red wheelbarrow not an image of it. I don't know if this is true. I'm just trying to make sense out of it.