The Case for Poetry in Art

Stephanie Bailly

A literary or poetic work can easily provide a starting point for the artistic process. Written work, after all, is one of the natural ways we as humans convey a feeling or communicate a vision. Many of us, including our students, are well-versed in using the words available to us within the language(s) we know to share our own voice.

Poetryʼs ambiguity and openness to interpretation can provide students with a wider realm of possibilities. Its value lies not only in the encounter itself, but also in the conversation surrounding it: sharing interpretations, considering other perspectives, and reflecting on our own responses.

This encounter is particularly valuable in the art room because it gives students opportunities to explore more complex ideas and reflect before making.

A Two-Voice poem is written to be read simultaneously by two people seated side by side. Typically, its column-based structure and spacing indicate which part is read, when it is read, and whether it is spoken by Voice 1, Voice 2, or both simultaneously.

The structure was popularized in the educational community during the late 1980s by Paul Fleischman, who was awarded the John Newbery Medal for Joyful Noise, his second published collection of Two-Voice poetry.

The Two-Voice structure lends itself well to exploring a contrasting central theme. As the poem is read aloud, both the speakers and the audience gain insight from varying perspectives—sometimes separately, sometimes in response to one another, and sometimes simultaneously.

When students reflect on a poetic provocation, their responses can guide their artistic expression. This works especially well when approaching a nuanced or controversial idea that may evoke a strong opinion or reaction.

The Two-Voice structure offers an interesting way to explore the ongoing conversation about AI and its place in the art world.

In the current age of advanced technology, there are both benefits and drawbacks to the use of AI and its generative capabilities. Its use also creates tension—a push and pull reflected in the often-polarized conversations I encounter among art teachers, educational resource creators, and artists.

While composing this Two-Voice poem (see below), I reflected upon my own experiences, those of people around me, and the conversations I encounter almost daily. The poem begs the question: What might artists value in a time when their creations can be enhanced, exploited, or transformed by any combination of AI?

In the following poem, the two voices represent the experience of an AI Artist and an Analog Artist who encounter the same prompt and use it as the basis for their artwork. It examines the similarities and differences within each process as well as the outcomes of their creations.

Though themes of authenticity, ownership, and agency are addressed through its simple wording, the auditory recitation method—specific to this structure—elicits a more visceral and in-depth artistic reflection.

As students reflect on the poem and its uncommon structure, they can explore how their opinions and preferences might shape their artistic expression. As they consider the poemʼs themes, students can reflect on how their own voices fit within the perspectives presented.

They can examine questions surrounding ownership, authenticity, and creative agency within an ever-evolving relationship with AI. While recording their thoughts throughout this reflection process, students communicate their sequence of reactions and begin developing an artistic response.

Instead of being confronted with the question of which way is “right,” they ask: What do I value? and How might it become visible?

Through analysis and discussion of their reflections and those of others, students may then determine how they want to respond to the concept, whether through a chosen medium, process, or alternative artistic presentation format. The poem provides the provocation, but the student determines the direction.

Students are confronted daily with multiple perspectives, opinions, and portrayals. They may not otherwise know how to respond visually to the complex ideas within the world they encounter.

By practicing how to think before making, students can become more flexible in their thinking and more confident in their individual perspectives.

Perhaps the purpose of this exercise is not to determine which voice is right, or even to resolve the tension between them. Instead, it is to make space for students to listen critically, recognize their own responses, and discover where their own voice enters the conversation.

By practicing this thinking-to-making process in the art room, we empower students to develop thoughtful and intentional expression—and establish the importance of creating meaningful artistic work.

Stephanie Bailly, founder of Picassa’s Palette, is an art educator and art curriculum designer who creates comprehensive, thoughtfully designed resources to help teachers deliver in-depth, engaging visual arts instruction that supports meaningful learning in the classroom. stephanie@picassaspalette.com