Poetry must be made by all and not by one.

Poetry must be made by all and not by one.

22/09/2025
23/10/2025

Poetry must be made by all and not by one.

Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.
Poetry must be made by all and not by one.

Hear the blazing words of Comte de Lautréamont, the strange and visionary poet, who proclaimed: “Poetry must be made by all and not by one.” In this utterance lies both rebellion and revelation. He cast aside the image of the solitary genius, alone with his pen, and declared instead that poetry belongs to the multitude, to the chorus of voices that make up humanity itself. For poetry is not merely the craft of a single soul; it is the breath of a people, the echo of generations, the music of shared existence.

The meaning of this quote is twofold. First, it is democratic—poetry is not the possession of the few, not the treasure of scholars and poets alone, but the birthright of every human being. Each person, by living, by feeling, by speaking, is already a maker of poetry. Second, it is communal—poetry is a great weaving of many threads, a tapestry of countless voices. What one poet writes springs from the soil of shared language, shared memory, shared struggle. Thus Lautréamont reminds us that poetry must be made by all, because it already lives in all.

The ancients bore witness to this truth. Homer sang of Achilles and Odysseus, but the epics he wove were not his alone—they were the collected songs of generations, carried on the lips of bards before him. The Iliad and the Odyssey are not one man’s creation, but the distillation of a people’s memory, a people’s grief, a people’s glory. So too with the Psalms of David, sung by countless voices across centuries. Here the truth resounds: the greatest poetry is never solitary, but communal, born from the many.

History also offers us the example of folk songs, carried by peasants in fields, sailors on seas, soldiers on marches. No single name is attached to them, yet they endure longer than the verses of kings. Their power lies in their universality—they are the voice of the people. In this, they embody Lautréamont’s dream: poetry made by all, not attributed to one, yet resonant with the truth of humanity itself.

Yet there is another layer to Lautréamont’s declaration: it is also revolutionary. He lived in an age of upheaval, when art was breaking from tradition, when new voices sought to tear down the idols of solitary genius. His cry that poetry must be collective is a call to overthrow the tyranny of the elite, to make of poetry not a crown for the few but a fire for the many. He sought a world where every human voice was heard, where every experience was honored, where art belonged not to the library alone but to the streets, the fields, the homes.

The lesson for us is clear: do not think that poetry belongs only to poets. Do not imagine that verse is only for books and schools. Poetry is in your speech, in your laughter, in your grief, in the stories you tell your children, in the prayers you whisper at night. To create poetry is not the task of one, but of all humanity, for each life adds a stanza to the song of the world.

Practical is this path: write, even if you are not called a writer. Speak, even if you are not named a poet. Share your story, your sorrow, your joy. Listen to the voices of others, for their words, too, are part of the great poem of existence. Let communities create together—songs, chants, stories, works of art—for in this way, Lautréamont’s vision lives: poetry made by all and not by one. And when it is made by all, it is eternal, for it is the poetry of humanity itself.

Comte de Lautreamont
Comte de Lautreamont

French - Poet April 4, 1846 - November 24, 1870

Tocpics Related
Notable authors
Have 6 Comment Poetry must be made by all and not by one.

AKAnh kiet

The quote challenges traditional ideas of who can create poetry. If everyone is involved in making poetry, does this democratize the art form, or does it dilute its essence? I wonder if this could make poetry more diverse and reflective of various perspectives, or would it lose the power and precision that often comes with individual expression? How would poetry change if it were no longer seen as something created only by a select few, but by everyone?

Reply.
Information sender

TNTuong Nguyen

Lautreamont’s view that poetry must be made by all suggests a democratic, inclusive approach to art. I find it empowering to think that poetry is not the sole domain of artists or intellectuals, but for anyone to create and share. But, does this imply that the act of creation is more important than the finished work? Could this shift in perspective help bring poetry closer to the everyday experiences of people, making it more relatable and accessible?

Reply.
Information sender

QDQuy Dat

This quote from Lautreamont makes me question the very nature of artistic creation. If poetry is made by everyone, does that mean anyone can contribute to it? And if so, what would distinguish good poetry from bad? Would the collective approach to poetry lead to more inclusivity, or would it result in the loss of the artistry that comes with individual expression? Is it possible to have the best of both worlds, where everyone contributes yet the quality of the poetry remains high?

Reply.
Information sender

LTLinh Thuy

Lautreamont’s assertion that 'poetry must be made by all' challenges the idea of the solitary poet. Is poetry meant to be an individual expression of the soul, or is it a community-based art form? How would the collaborative creation of poetry reshape its purpose and meaning? Can we envision a world where poetry reflects the collective consciousness of society, rather than the inner turmoil or beauty of a single poet?

Reply.
Information sender

AQVo Anh Quan

I’m intrigued by the idea that poetry should be made by all. Does this imply that the traditional role of the poet as an isolated creator should be dismantled? Could poetry truly become more meaningful if it’s a collective act, with everyone contributing their thoughts, feelings, and experiences? How would this shift change the nature of poetry and its connection to society? Is it possible that poetry could become more inclusive and diverse if it was truly created by all?

Reply.
Information sender
Leave the question
Click here to rate
Information sender