Senryu 26.08.14

[rayheinrich]

personally i think it should be written as a snapshot/ single image/frame
but the reader and the mind sees sometimes, thing that weren't intended.
the writer may knowingly use a metaphor if it's an image i suppose but the
metaphor i think should be secondary in the writing. clever poets can write
clever haiku that serve both ideas. as can be done with other numerous forms.

Yes, this holds for all art. The message/meaning that art communicates
to us doesn't just depend on the abilities of the artist, it depends on
the reader's ability to interpret it. The reader's ability depends on
her/his knowledge of the historical time, culture, politics, variations
in the language (meaning of words, phrases, idiomatic expressions etc.)
in which the art was created. Because of this, intended meanings, metaphor,
etc. often go unnoticed.

Many of Basho's haiku were written as commentary on personal events,
the politics of his time, as well as on historical events. If it wasn't for
some of his students, who compiled quotations from him about his own
poetry, these would go unnoticed. Shakespeare's plays are filled with jokes,
puns, political references; many of these have only recently been discovered.

And yes, the reader perceives messages/meanings in the art that were not
intended by the artist, that are a product of the differences between the
artist and the reader.

At some point, depending on how much effort you want to put into it,
you take it as it stands; you accept that it's a product of both you and
the artist. It's beautiful.

But it's a mistake to assume that what you don't see isn't there.

Sometimes you know what you don't know, most of the time you don't.