What constitutes poetry?

Today's introductory lecture and seminar focused on the way that we define poetry as a medium, and the art behind its construction. We were asked to think about what 'poetry' was to us as individuals, and how we would describe it objectively. My attempt:

Poetry is...
A successful mastery of language used to convey an emotion or idea that we, as human beings, can connect to and appreciate.

My definition sits in between the two main schools of American thought regarding poetry, One of which championing the poet as a prophet, where content is integral, and its wisdom is the product of an epiphany or genius of the creator; The other focusing more on form, where content is secondary to structure, and the work is revered as a construction, and valued as a form of literary architecture. Though I feel structure is integral to a poem, and not only adds emphasis to the content, and showcases the poet's mastery of language even in constraint, I feel that content should be held with equal importance.

"Only connect! That was the whole of her sermon. Only connect the prose and the passion and both will be exalted, and human love will be seen at its height. Live in fragments no longer."
-E.M Forster

As a human being, I believe it is empathy that seperates us from animals, The fact that we can feel, understand, and sympathise even in situations that we have never experienced, is definitive in our species, and the fact that this empathy can override instinct demonstrates both our free will, and capacity for emotional logic. I feel that for poetry to be truly great, it needs to carry a message, however vague that message may be, that the reader can connect to. From the poet's perspective, it gives the work a purpose, and references its original inspiration or cause. From the reader's perspective, it allows entry into a collective union of humanity, forming an emotional connection to the products of a stranger, that can be shared by others.
I think it is important to define ourselves as readers in the poetry process, for if it is this connection which is important, to some extent it removes the genius from the creator. Last term, I studied Roland Barthes, and his theories in The Death of the Author.
Barthes argues that our Postmodern society puts too much emphasis on the ‘Author’ behind the work. He argues that a good piece of literature is one entirely devoid of marks left by the ‘creator’. Why? Because by linking a creator with His product, Barthes believes that one will automatically search for His voice. His biography will provide the definitive answer on the correct “meaning” or “explanation” of his work, and so ultimately, “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text." Barthes goes on to say that no ‘product’ is an original work, but rather a “tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of cultures”. By claiming that the Author’s products were simply a culmination of the fruits of the variations in society, he takes away the God-like status of the Author, and shifts the importance to the reader. "A text's unity lies not in its origins, but in its destination," and so it is instead the reader who takes the active role in piecing together these fractions and assuming meaning, it is The reader who is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost“.
If this is the case, poetry's worth could be judged by two merits; As a piece of architecture, the genius lies with the poet, but for the connective content, the reader supplies its value.



Quotes are from:
Barthes, Roland. 'The Death of the Author' from Image, Music, Text. (London: Hill and Wang,1978.
Forster, E.M. Howards End (London: Penguin Books, 1972)