What is poetry

[Bruce V]

I am curious as to what others think:  What is poetry?  In this age it would seem that any block of words put together in any form can be called poetry.  Free verse, traditional verse, digital poetry, concrete poetry, visual poetry, prose poetry -- the list goes on.  The issue I have is that if anything and everything is poetry, doesn't the term 'poetry' lose all meaning?  

Don't get me wrong:  I write poetry of different types.  But perhaps "poetry" is dead, and now we are simply wordsmiths. So, how would you define poetry?

[busker]

This is one of the first questions that get asked on any poetry forum. It has gotten asked here several times over the years, and you can search for those threads.

The verse forms that you mention are not from 'this day and age'. Free verse is over a century old at this point. Robert Bly wrote his prose poem The Dead Seal fifty years ago (the form being older still). Visual poetry goes back millennia, but some of the best known examples in English are from Alice in Wonderland - the mouse's tail.

To your question, obviously 'anything and everything' is not poetry. Your inherent assumption that form is poetry is unsupported. The second question about being wordsmiths is odd. How are you defining a wordsmith? I shall ignore this, as it's poorly stated, and stick to the first point.

Poetry has been written in various forms for decades, centuries, millennia. What most people mean by 'traditional verse' is the sort of rhyming poetry they learn in school. But rhyming poetry is a fairly recent invention. Old English poems like Beowulf never rhymed. The Greek epics didn't use rhyme. The psalms use rhyme occasionally. These are just within the Western tradition. Going further, Piers Plowman used rhyme, but also alliteration. No one would do that today, except as a joke.

The prologue to Paradise Lost states that rhyme is the invention of a barbarous age, and so forth.

Then there is free verse vs metered verse.
Metered verse is a hangover from a pre-literate age. All ancient verse is metered (when not rhyming) to make it easier to write and recite.
Shakespeare used iambic pentameter for his monologues. No modern playwright of film script writer will do that, because it doesn't make sense anymore.

The question remains as to how to define poetry. A similar question could be asked about how to define mathematics and how it differs from symbolic logic or computation. Was it cheating or 'proper maths' to use computers to 'prove' the four colour theorem?
Maths is what mathematicians decide what maths is.
Likewise, poetry is what craftsmen decide what poetry is.

Where poetry differs from prose is in that it's not a straight narration. The poet, through the use of words, is trying to create an effect that is a multiple of the mere information being conveyed. This is done by using sonics, imagery, and a sense of finding the perfect word for the perfect spot. Lyrical prose also falls loosely into this category, but differs from poetry in that economy is not as important.

Because the medium and the message are so intertwined in poetry, it is untranslatable in many cases. Or it loses a lot in the translation when you do.
Prose doesn't suffer the same problem.

[Bruce V]

Much good stuff here, though it seems I put a bee under your bonnet, unintentionally.

This is one of the first questions that get asked on any poetry forum. It has gotten asked here several times over the years, and you can search for those threads.

The verse forms that you mention are not from 'this day and age'. Free verse is over a century old at this point. Robert Bly wrote his prose poem The Dead Seal fifty years ago (the form being older still). Visual poetry goes back millennia, but some of the best known examples in English are from Alice in Wonderland - the mouse's tail.

To your question, obviously 'anything and everything' is not poetry. Later you say "poetry is what craftsmen say poetry is".  Contradictory

Your inherent assumption that form is poetry is unsupported.  Your assumption that this is my assumption, is incorrect.

 The second question about being wordsmiths is odd. How are you defining a wordsmith? I shall ignore this, as it's poorly stated, and stick to the first point.

Poetry has been written in various forms for decades, centuries, millennia. What most people mean by 'traditional verse' is the sort of rhyming poetry they learn in school. But rhyming poetry is a fairly recent invention. Old English poems like Beowulf never rhymed. The Greek epics didn't use rhyme. The psalms use rhyme occasionally. These are just within the Western tradition. Going further, Piers Plowman used rhyme, but also alliteration. No one would do that today, except as a joke.  ? No one would use both rhyme and alliteration, except as a joke.  Nonsense.  

The prologue to Paradise Lost states that rhyme is the invention of a barbarous age, and so forth.

Then there is free verse vs metered verse.
Metered verse is a hangover from a pre-literate age. All ancient verse is metered (when not rhyming) to make it easier to write and recite.
Shakespeare used iambic pentameter for his monologues. No modern playwright of film script writer will do that, because it doesn't make sense anymore.

The question remains as to how to define poetry. A similar question could be asked about how to define mathematics and how it differs from symbolic logic or computation. Was it cheating or 'proper maths' to use computers to 'prove' the four colour theorem?
Maths is what mathematicians decide what maths is.
Likewise, poetry is what craftsmen decide what poetry is.

Where poetry differs from prose is in that it's not a straight narration.  Except when it is:  ie. Idyls of the King are straight narration.

The poet, through the use of words, is trying to create an effect that is a multiple of the mere information being conveyed. This is done by using sonics, imagery, and a sense of finding the perfect word for the perfect spot.  Certainly true for some poets, but it is mistaken as a generalization.  Different poets are trying to do other things.

 Lyrical prose also falls loosely into this category, but differs from poetry in that economy is not as important.

Because the medium and the message are so intertwined in poetry, it is untranslatable in many cases. Or it loses a lot in the translation when you do.
Prose doesn't suffer the same problem.

Thank you for comments.  They were very thoughtful and thorough.  I might add that personally I notice that since Whitman poetry, like painting/art, has been going through a period of deconstruction -- not saying it is wrong, just an observation.

[busker]

“No one would use both rhyme and alliteration, except as a joke.  Nonsense.”

Why don’t you try and write a long poem (which is what Piers Plowman is) using both, and see what people have to say?
It’s not particularly difficult. A precocious child could do it.
It’s not going to be taken seriously.

“Except when it is:  ie. Idyls of the King are straight narration.”
So the death of Arthur is “straight narration”?
Rubbish

“ Later you say "poetry is what craftsmen say poetry is".  Contradictory”
Which is not the same thing as “anything and everything”.

“ Certainly true for some poets, but it is mistaken as a generalization.  Different poets are trying to do other things.”
What “other things”? Either add to your own question or I’ll take this as reddit style engagement farming and move on to better things than clicking on a low value post

[Bruce V]

“No one would use both rhyme and alliteration, except as a joke.  Nonsense.”

Why don’t you try and write a long poem (which is what Piers Plowman is) using both, and see what people have to say?
It’s not particularly difficult. A precocious child could do it.
I have written several epic poems, using both.  You are right that they are not well received, but they weren't a joke.  The "precocious child" comment is, I assume, meant to be an insult, and I will not get involved in that.  

It’s not going to be taken seriously.

“Except when it is:  ie. Idyls of the King are straight narration.”
So the death of Arthur is “straight narration”?
Rubbish
Narration:  the act of telling a story or recounting a sequence of events.  I think the multiple chapters of the Idyls counts as narration.  Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "straight".
of

“ Later you say "poetry is what craftsmen say poetry is".  Contradictory”
Which is not the same thing as “anything and everything”.

“ Certainly true for some poets, but it is mistaken as a generalization.  Different poets are trying to do other things.”
What “other things”? Either add to your own question or I’ll take this as reddit style engagement farming and move on to better things than clicking on a low value post

Anyway, you posit that "poetry is what craftsmen decide what poetry is".  That alone tells me your view on "What is Poetry?"  I do not seek to argue anyone's view.  As I mentioned I'm just curious to know how others see it.

I don't know what "reddit style engagement farming" is; I don't even know what reddit.  But if I had to guess I would say you think I'm just trying to get a rise out of people.  No thank you.

[busker]

Thanks for clarifying
I think something we constantly underestimate is how much better we are than people in the time of Chaucer, including Chaucer
Universal literacy, at least in the western world, cultural familiarity, tertiary education alone are taken for granted now, without even going into the content of that education itself, which was, frankly, crap until about two hundred years ago.

Unfortunately, I can’t speak to this subject without ranting about the utter imbecility of people in eras past, but if you look past that, you will no doubt agree that poetic form as understood by Chaucer and Petrarch are like try wheels on a bicycle for us today. I mentioned the precocious child not as an insult but as a statement of fact. Children today can write better than Chaucer, technically speaking. The standards of the past are vile garbage.

Down with history!!