Artist Date, Ekphrastic Poetry, and AI as Impartial Critic

Each month, Poets Northwest meets in NW Houston to share poems and tips on writing poetry. Next month we’ll be focusing on revision, as well. This month, we were challenged to write an ekphrastic poem about a local artist or work of art displayed locally. It was there that I learned from friend and fellow member, Lynn G., about the Pearl Fincher Museum of Fine Arts – located about 15 minutes from me. I must live under a rock. I’ve been to the courthouse and I’ve been to the Barbara Bush Library, both of which are walking distance from the Pearl.

I called Lynn on Thursday to tell her I was going there to “do my homework.” I was already four blocks from my house when I asked her, “Wanna come?”

To my surprised delight, she said “Why not?” and pulled into the parking lot about 10 seconds after I got there.

“An artist date!” I think we both mentally pulled out our old copies of The Artist’s Way, by Julia Cameron.

Below, you’ll find my “homework,” an ekphrastic poem based on a work of art by Caroline Z. Marcos entitled, “Ocean Biome.” Several works of art inspired me, but this one tempted me to explore the images more deeply.

Nick Thacker, whom I met at last year’s Oklahoma Writers Federation Inc. (OWFI) Annual Conference, presented a session called “Write 80,000 Words in a Day.” I’ll admit that while I am not one of the rabid AI haters, I rolled my eyes at him and whispered, as he tried to convince me to stay, that the only way to produce that much output was with AI. I have too much professional pride to let AI write for me. And any AI images I use? I don’t ask friends to do free labor for me and I won’t pay for blog header images. I don’t trust “found on internet” freebies. And my own photos don’t always “go” with what I’m writing. But for anything involving a profit, like illustrations for a children’s book? You bet I’d pay a real artist.

That was probably a bad example, as I have yet to make a real profit from my children’s books, but you know what I mean – I hope.

“AI, but not what you think,” Nick said. “Stick around. You may be pleasantly surprised.” I did, and I was. He wasn’t suggesting the use of generative AI to write those 80,000 words after all. And (not) being from Missouri, but being somewhat skeptical, I tested his suggestions out right there during his session. He uses dictation – something I’m still too self-conscious to do – to draft the novel, then uses AI, acting as a proofreader/copy-editor to clean up grammar, spelling, and punctuation. It’s brilliant. And yes, you still have to read it and fix a few errors – it’s far from perfect and still quite human-centered.

One of my favorite ways to use AI as a tool is to analyze, list strengths and weaknesses in my writing, and offer suggestions. I have never seen it suggest its own words, and wouldn’t use them if it did. AI writes doggerel, at best. It can recite the rules of formal verse, but rarely manages to follow them. It can invent new forms – which is a fun new pastime of mine – but you have to be careful and check its work to ensure that it hasn’t just renamed an existing form.

As a critic, though, it is competent. I use it, occasionally, to ensure that my metaphors and similes aren’t too much of a leap – figuring that if AI gets the message I’m trying to convey, a human reader should have no trouble understanding it. I use it to make sure that symbolism is neither too obscure nor too obvious and cliché, to catch little speed-bumps and unintended repetition. It does a pretty decent job. And it offers constructive criticism without nastiness or sugar-coating, often treading where humans fear to tread in a misguided belief that heaping nothing but unconditional praise on a writer’s head is helpful. Sometimes, that praise is an understandable fear, like traversing a minefield. See Delicate Sensibilities. For real poets, it’s more like… | by Holly Jahangiri | Medium

As with human critique, it’s important to know what rings true and what makes no sense in the context of the writer’s vision. Here’s an example of where I used AI through three revisions of the following ekphrastic poem: ChatGPT Poem Analysis, Strengths & Weaknesses.

I think that ChatGPT is a little limited in its ability to “see” the artwork in question, though some image generators are able to analyze and describe an image. So the comments about the flowers and the “comet-fish” are not on point; I clarified the fish with its “tail on fire” but ignored ChatGPT’s suggestions about the flowers. Still, it was all just food for thought, and I agree with Cat Farts (my nickname for ChatGPT) that the last version is the strongest of the three, and I appreciate the feedback.