This is perhaps because Auden’s poem coaxes more of a response than Williams’. Of Williams’ collection of poems on Brueghel’s works, Hollander says, “As poetic interpretations, they seem particularly vapid, and do less for either a viewer or reader than the prose of a good art-historical writer could. Perhaps because Williams was, at this point in his work, imaginatively tired with his old project of denying that there were valid allegorical or mythopoetic agendas for poetry, these poems are characteristically flat, rather than strong, in their interpretive reticence” (Hollander, 252). While I would argue that Williams’ poem should not be dismissed and bears consideration as a good example of an imagist poem, it is definitely more descriptive rather than narrative or interpretive. This descriptive, detached style, which imitates statement rather than judgement, is perhaps why his poem does not elicit as much of a response as Auden’s. In this case, it is definitely, the narrative impulse of ekphrastic poetry mentioned by Heffernan that elicits a response. As Heffernan observes, graphic art “checks” this impulse, and in this sense Williams’ incorporates the checking of this impulse within the poetic medium too, sticking more or less to describing only what is present in the canvas. Auden, however, gives way to his narrative perspective of the scene – he suggests that the ploughman “may have heard the splash”; that the ship “must have seen something amazing,” while Williams’ simply observes these characters as they are on the canvas without giving them a narrative of their own. Based on this difference, it could be argued that ekphrastic poems that gaze beyond what is depicted on the canvas are more successful in terms of initiating responses than those poems that are more focused on only what is depicted in the
This is perhaps because Auden’s poem coaxes more of a response than Williams’. Of Williams’ collection of poems on Brueghel’s works, Hollander says, “As poetic interpretations, they seem particularly vapid, and do less for either a viewer or reader than the prose of a good art-historical writer could. Perhaps because Williams was, at this point in his work, imaginatively tired with his old project of denying that there were valid allegorical or mythopoetic agendas for poetry, these poems are characteristically flat, rather than strong, in their interpretive reticence” (Hollander, 252). While I would argue that Williams’ poem should not be dismissed and bears consideration as a good example of an imagist poem, it is definitely more descriptive rather than narrative or interpretive. This descriptive, detached style, which imitates statement rather than judgement, is perhaps why his poem does not elicit as much of a response as Auden’s. In this case, it is definitely, the narrative impulse of ekphrastic poetry mentioned by Heffernan that elicits a response. As Heffernan observes, graphic art “checks” this impulse, and in this sense Williams’ incorporates the checking of this impulse within the poetic medium too, sticking more or less to describing only what is present in the canvas. Auden, however, gives way to his narrative perspective of the scene – he suggests that the ploughman “may have heard the splash”; that the ship “must have seen something amazing,” while Williams’ simply observes these characters as they are on the canvas without giving them a narrative of their own. Based on this difference, it could be argued that ekphrastic poems that gaze beyond what is depicted on the canvas are more successful in terms of initiating responses than those poems that are more focused on only what is depicted in the