Vishvesh Obla wrote:
> believe that poetry has its own context, its own
> perspective and we only put too much of ourselves
> distorting what it essentially is, when we look at it
> from so many related details, that have a kind of
> historic interest alone. Poetry has been read as a
> cultural activity and that explains it for me.
There are two problems here. The first is that the concept of "essence"
always raises an infernal complex of questions -- even when it is
applicable, and it is not clear to me that poetry _has_ an "essence." Or
if it has, no one has as yet been able to define and explain it
satisfactorily. Most attempts include either too much or too little
within the allowed domain.
Your definition includes far too much. It is as if one were to say that
colas are essentially liquids. True, but not of great interest.
Similarly, "cultural activity" includes styles in shirts, lunch-break
habits in factories, decisions whether to call the 10th grade the 10th
grade or the sophomore year, preferred positions for sexual intecourse,
and internal structure of dwelling units. (Consider the last: up until
quite recent times homes/mansions/etc did not have hallways. Consider
the impact of that on sleeping habits. And of course the bulk of the
population would not even have separate bedrooms; see The Reeves Tale.)
That is, however difficult it is to define poetry, it is even _more_
difficult to define "culture," and hence a definition of poetry in terms
of culture creates more questions than it answers.