Well, while I DO love a little poetic license, the interpretation above isn’t mine, and I did include Glover’s title. I used “Oodll Addle” as the title of my post, not the poem, to link it to today’s discussions. I thought it was an interesting think piece, and made no claims as to its meaning in my original post.
But since you brought it up, I think the cool thing about interpreting poetry - or any art - is that it is subjective. Just as we have a reader’s license to interpret novels and characters in our own way, we can also interpret poetry based on our subjective experience.
Because without the subjective/personal meaning we attach to it, what is the actual value of art? Otherwise it’s just canvas, some paint. A composition of individual notes. Rhythmic body movements without context.
But since I’m reblogging here, and I love a good poetry dissection, if there’s a link to be made between Oodll addle and oodle ardle, semantics and spelling aside, I think it’s this:
Artists can create art. They can produce beautiful things. They can use up their hearts and souls and lives creating these things. But their lives are temporary, as is their art. What is perpetual is the chatter of critics, the constant noise in the background. But artists suffer on, following that painfully human impulse to create, to stamp, to claim ... regardless of its futility.
Kind of appropriate for today, I thought.
Or maybe it means absolutely nothing.
And that’s the beauty of opinion.