What is a poem? (Is a sequence of images a poem?)

Can a series of still images be a poem? Why not? I think we need to think about the poem differently. We always have, really. Poetry, at it's inception, was performance art sung before a crowd. So you have stories, music, a crowd, performers, booze, refreshments. The works. That's your first extant poetry. It's important to understand that these were state-sanctioned performances. 

The Homeric tradition was spread in a different way. Traveling performers would perform private performances. And these are your first poems. Later, you get poetry from interesting figures like Archilochus, a soldier, talking about soldier stuff. 

Until you have had the printing press for over 400 years do you get an approach to poetry that considers a reader and not a listener. If you want to argue that a poem must employ audio for consideration, be my guest. But to do so would reject the last 100 years of literary tradition. Nonetheless, slam poetry survives as a legitimate oral poetry tradition. 

Meanwhile, poetry has slithered its way into other places, some of which it may not even be wanted. Visual poetry is a thing and today's poets must not only consider the page, but the screen, and more. Some of these poems may be utterly devoid of lyrical content while others may produce hybrid approaches such as ee cummings and everyone who came after him. 

As a writer first, I want people to see words the same way I do. That means seeing words even when we're looking at things. I want us to become more aware of how language pervades our basic senses. In so doing, we can become more conscious of how we make meaning. Ultimately, poets are doing this. I'm doing this. I'm a poet, therefore, I think this is a poem. 

I don't need you to agree with me. I want you, for the sake of putting on a pair of really weird glasses, look at a painting the same way you would a poem, a sentence, a word, a paragraph, an essay, a chapter, or a book. I want one process to guide both. I don't need to "prove" that a sequence of images "is" a poem to expand the reader's mind in this way.

Now, as poets, we refer to great works of art knowing that for the reader, it's a touchstone to convey meaning. In this case, I'm flipping the table. I'm using works of art that refer to a great work of art like American Gothic. So, I'm using the images to convey meaning in a similar way that a reference to a great work of art would in a poem.

So, the poem is parasitic insofar as it borrows the energy of the great work of art to funnel some meaning into it, more than it could without a complex symbolic image. But as repayment, the poem increases the scope and power of the great work of art by acting as a signal repeater. In fact, it amplifies the signal, makes it new, and makes it more. 

Sometimes, my comparisons are inspiring. Today, I'm coping with ChatGPT. Please bear with me. Poets are signal repeaters. Life is hard. I wish I was an anteater. Too bad I'm a bard.

In summation, you don't have to buy that a sequence of images is a poem, you need to understand that a poet wants you to read a sequence of images like a poem and understand that language controls what you see too.