Brann: Take a picture of a poem
"Thus, after nearly two and a half millennia, language and visual imagining draw apart; for their mutuality depended on the understanding that visual arts depict something, the very thing the poetic arts describe. And that is just what neither artists or critics any longer take for granted" (Brann 247).
Im not certain other than according to the critics, that these two things are changing. Is it not still the job of the poet, and the painter, to create something that their audience will enjoy. I think the change has been greater in the form of painting than it has in the realm of writing. I still dont understand how some paint thrown on a canvas, whether according to design or at random makes art. I can still see that just as it has always been, it is still the writers job to take their audience to a believable place away from "true reality".
Although I am one of those people who argues that paint thrown on a canvas is art, I agree that the job of the artist is to entertain their audience. However, if that is the artists only job they would never experiment with the unknown and create new art.