What style is this?

[Akira]

 A poem having depth is different than a poem that simply engenders fascination. 

...or the simple fact that they are intrigued by them. Who is the speaker, who is the speaker speaking to? 

" And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?

Yet I wonder, intrigued: Who is the speaker? Who is he speaking to?

 
The ambiguity level is so high there can be many interpretations. 

...

Just in case anyone has ever wondered about these lines in "Tyger"

"When the stars threw down their spears,
And water'd heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee? "

It means that humankind had matured enough that the spirits of the stars no longer needed to goad humans into doing the right thing, for now they (humanity) had awakened and saw they should do what is right, simply because it is right. They wept because it was such an odious thing to have to punish them, just as it is painful when a loving parent must punish his/her child. So they weep with joy and throw "down their spears" because they will not have to use them ever again.

"It means "

Stop there. I am sure you see the problem.


But what the hey, let's play: a straightforward reading of the poem would suggest something more akin to: the very stars themselves surrendering their weapons in despair before the brutal might of the fearsome creation, while the narrator questions and wonders that a creator who produced a creature of gentleness could produce an engine of such dire viciousness. Supported by most the rest of the poem, including passages like:

And what shoulder, & what art, 

Could twist the sinews of thy heart? 

And when thy heart began to beat, 

What dread hand? & what dread feet? 

Which does not scream to me of man emerging into the flower of ethics and morality.

Not to say you could not make an argument for what you wrote above, but to use that as an example of how good poetry has unambiguous, albeit layered, levels of meaning strikes me as somewhat... somewhat.

All of that said, I don't completely disagree with you.

There is an anthology movie called New York Stories done by Woody Allen, Scorsese & Coppola. The Scorsese segment has Nick Nolte playing a frustrated abstract artist a la Jackson Pollack. There is a scene (its been a long time) where he gets angry or emotionally wrought, cranks the tunes and breaks through his barriers, with the paint flying and snapping against the canvas. While it is a cool scene, I could only think of (forgive my, still two decades later, pathetically limited knowledge of classic and modern art) Michelangelo or Renoir, etc. Is the appeal just some weird emotional reaction... is there truly any meaning? I imagine elite-y soho-ites sipping champagne while stating

Well, the brilliance is the stripped blobs of green paint along the left side, speckled with black, representing the emergent environmental awakenings amongst the worker class of east asians experiencing growing disenfranchisement with the Communist regime.

It can be easy to forget it's a spectrum.