There is no such thing as "vague poems with multiple meanings"...

Is this... an intelligent post?

>internal world
now that's vague and has multiple meaning

I’m just talking about the concept itself of vague vs specific. I would probably agree that any one vague thing a person may write could be tied to some specific source, but then there’s the entire other half to any written words, which is what the other everybody-else end reading it gets, and how it is received. Both exist at the same time, the writingas it is coming from the writer and then how it is received by the reader. Something being vague but still technically specific to any one thing may be irrelevant. On that note though, then there’s the approach of writing intentionally ambiguous in the mind of the writer, where the writer themselves might not even know what they are writing. Does that come from somewhere specific? Maybe, but is this a specific thing or is it maybe an amalgamate of multiple things from multiple different places? This could be irrelevant as well.

What about when a concept in mathematics is reinterpreted and applied to a new area of study? Is that also invalid according to you?

So what happens when the author is long dead and all we have are the poems themselves?

Even if we take what you say to be true, how do we determine what is the "true" meaning? Even the author may not be able to capture the full breadth of their mind and contributing factors of their work. If they're dead or never bothered to write down what they were thinking about at the time, it seems quite impractical to try and derive a singular true interpretation.

The moral of The Boy Who Cried Wolf is to not get CAUGHT lying too much.

Who cares. The worst art is that which adheres to what you say strictly. The best is what is so multilayered and interpretation-tolerant that the consumers far outstrip the creator in their understandings making him seem an infantile factoryworker. Actually that's what artists are, people who are good at making this for others, in their collective variability, to take above and beyond.

Some things are created to invoke ideas within people. Not to plant ideas within them. Some artists create things with the intent of each unique person to experience something different, therefore there cannot be no universal meaning.

Bitch lasagna you suppose that because the author had an intention that intention is magically transported into the mind of the reader?
>B-but the point of good art is convey a message effectively
So what if it is? Readers can learn things authors can't accept about themselves, can have cultural distances from the author and bring a totally different set of experiences to reading a text than the author had, life ensures a poem is never the same in two minds.
So why should the experience of a work that a reader has be thrown away because you worship an inevitably imperfect model of what an author most likely intended a work to be interpreted as?

Fuck your reductionism and everything that comes with it