This might be controversial. I know it's up to every author/publisher but I've been reading a poetry collection that has full page, full colour illustrations.
Now, I will say right off the bat that I'm not an artist. I might think a drawing is pretty but I don't see the artistic craft that goes into it. And if I'm honest, I'd probably be more interested if a book was illustrated by the author themselves.
However, on the whole, I find illustrations a bit distracting. Maybe it's because, as I said, I'm not artistically inclined or because I haven't read books with pictures for quite a long time. I just wondered what other people thought.
(For simplicity's sake, I will refer to illustrations/images/photographs collectively as 'images').
Great question... though images are definitely not a requisite for poetry, I personally think they have a place in poetry provided:
The poem stands perfectly well on its own, and the image is not there to provide further elaboration on the poem's meaning. The poem should communicate that itself, as poems are intended to do.
If it is explicitly clear that the image is only there to accompany the poem. By this I mean, is secondary to whatever is being expressed in the poem without influencing or altering the main messages/meanings of the poem. The image can add to the message in the poem, but only as an extra or alternate reading (as opposed to significantly impacting the meaning/s of the poem... if that makes any sense!)
The image needs to reflect exactly what is going on in the poem and should not provide extra 'clues' to the reader. Again, all messages must be clearly and definitively communicated via the poem itself.
I will say, like Lana's 'Violet', sometimes poems that are accompanied by photos of locations significant to the poem or the poet enhances the reader's connection with the poem. However, like point 1., the visual descriptions of the location featured in the poem must be sufficiently communicated via the poem itself. Das just my two-cents.
I think illustrations are great if they complement the poetry. I have a friend who released a book of haiku, where each haiku was like a little riddle and the answer was revealed on the next page in a watercolour painted by her father. It was very beautiful.
It’s an interesting one. For sure the Kaur esq line drawings are haggard and exhausted by this point! But if the illustrations relate to the poem and aren’t on EVERY page, I think they can be a nice refresher. I like how @Nathan Hunt used illustrations in his collection Immortalised in Ink.
I also think Lana Del Rey’s use of photography in Violets was powerful!
I didn’t use any in E.H but maybe next time for sure! 😉
I think Illustrations shouldn't have a place.
Perhaps its because I'm reading The Howl,a book where there no Illustrations,yet I also read a book I won't name that had Illustrations.
When I look at them,I often ask myself,what the heck was the point.
It seems everyone does line drawings because its the standard.
Which is why when I did start my poetry book(in October 2020),I chose to NOT have illustrations.
Only picture is book cover.
Thats about it.
Granted,I can see them making sense,if poet art had purposeful intention.
Often times,they come off Try Hard.
And not genuine.
Side note,I'm enjoying The Howl,a book where there no illustrations.
And I'm perfectly okay with that.
I think like so many poetry trends, illustrations are so saturated now that they are often off putting. I might be wrong but I believe it was Rupi Kaur who made line drawings this massive thing? For her it was a genuine artform. It isn't really surprising that so many poets also dabble in art as a complimentary medium. I feel like maybe we need to be more original with it now. If for nothing else, to try and stand out in a sea of monochrome! But the art should relate to the words they are being coupled with. I think for many poets, particularly those new to the form and choosing IG as their platform, the line art seems like 'the done thing' and not an expression of self. Which means the illustrations as art lose their meaning. If you are going to put art in your poetry collection, I believe you should do so because you are an artist, and it speaks to and contextualises your poetry, not just because everyone else does it. Canva have a whole album of line drawings that I see people using - so sometimes the art they are using isn't even their own. And there are tutorials where people are showing how you can use photographs from Pinterest etc as the base for line drawings on photoshop etc, which I'm so conflicted with as you are essentially stealing the photographer's work, but that's a whole 'fair use' minefield and a whole other soap box! 🤣 I'm no artist, but I have had a career in photography. I'm in the middle of working out how to combine that artform and poetry to relaunch my social media (I'm so sick of the black and white squares of text) I'm looking for something different and engaging but not unidentifiable, that can be transferred into a book if and when the time comes. It's not easy to juggle and it's so helpful to hear how those who enjoy reading poetry feel about the inclusion of art, so thank you for starting this conversation 😊 PS sorry, that is a LONG reply and I'm not entirely sure I fully responded to your points 🤣