Slowly poetry becomes visual because it paints images, but it is
Slowly poetry becomes visual because it paints images, but it is also musical: it unites two arts into one.
Hear the luminous words of Eugenio Montale, poet of Italy and singer of the ineffable: “Slowly poetry becomes visual because it paints images, but it is also musical: it unites two arts into one.” In this saying, he unveils the secret nature of poetry—that it is not bound by ink or sound alone, but that it gathers into itself the strength of both painting and music, uniting what the eye beholds and what the ear delights in. It is not merely language, but a bridge between the senses, a union of vision and melody that elevates words into art eternal.
The meaning of Montale’s words rests in the duality of poetry. At its core, poetry paints images: it shows us the red of dawn, the trembling hand of the lover, the shadow of death upon the threshold. Through metaphor and image, it opens before us landscapes that do not fade. But poetry is not picture alone; it is musical as well. Its rhythm, its cadence, its rise and fall of syllables echo the pulse of song. Thus, Montale calls it the art that unites two into one—a single vessel where the painter’s brush and the musician’s lyre join hands.
The ancients knew this well. Homer’s verses painted battlefields so vividly that even today we see Achilles’ blazing armor, Hector’s last stand, the fires of Troy. Yet these visions were not cold pictures; they were carried on the waves of music, chanted and sung by bards, their rhythm echoing the beating of oars upon the sea. Thus the Iliad and Odyssey were not only visual epics, but musical hymns, binding image and song into one eternal flame.
Consider also Dante Alighieri. In The Divine Comedy, he painted with words the circles of hell, the mountain of purgatory, and the spheres of paradise. Each canto is a fresco for the imagination. Yet his terza rima carried music, a pattern of rhyme that guided the soul upward and downward like the steps of a hymn. The power of Dante lies not only in what he shows us, but in how his verse sings. Montale’s teaching is reflected here: true poetry must be both painting and music, or it is not whole.
History shows us too the danger of neglecting one or the other. A poem without image is hollow, abstract, lacking the flesh that gives life. A poem without rhythm is clumsy, its words stumbling without harmony. But when image and music unite, the poem becomes eternal. This is why Shakespeare’s sonnets live still: each line a painting of love, time, or despair, and each line a melody that lingers like a song upon the tongue.
The lesson for us, seekers of beauty, is this: in your reading, in your writing, in your living, do not separate vision from song. Seek to see the world clearly, with painter’s eyes, capturing its colors and forms. But also, live musically—let your days have rhythm, let your words carry harmony, let your actions flow like verses in a greater hymn. To be whole, like poetry, is to unite sight and sound, truth and beauty.
Practical is this path: when you write, strive to paint images with your words—do not merely state, but show. And then, listen to the rhythm of your sentences, the rise and fall of their music—do not merely explain, but sing. When you speak to others, let your words create both pictures for the mind and melodies for the heart. For as Montale teaches, poetry is the union of two arts into one—and so too must our lives strive to be unions of clarity and harmony, of vision and song, of beauty made whole.
KCLe Nguyen Khanh Chi
Montale’s view of poetry as a fusion of visual and musical elements makes me think about how it connects to our emotions. Could the images evoked by poetry, combined with its musical quality, create a more immersive experience? How do these two elements—imagery and sound—work together to enhance the emotional impact of a poem? Is it possible for a poem to succeed in one area but fall short in the other?
Ttduog
The notion of poetry as both visual and musical is intriguing. It challenges the traditional view of poetry as something confined solely to written words. If poetry can paint pictures and create melodies, what makes it different from other art forms, like painting or music? Does this suggest that poetry, in its essence, is more multifaceted and flexible than we often give it credit for?
DLvu duy linh
I love the idea that poetry is both visual and musical, combining two forms of art into one. This makes me think about how some poems make us ‘see’ through their vivid descriptions and how others ‘sound’ beautiful when read aloud. But can a poem truly excel in both areas—visual and musical—at the same time? Or is it more about the harmony between the two that creates its power?
VTVan Thuy
Montale’s quote makes me think about the relationship between poetry and other forms of art, like painting or music. Can a poem be seen as a bridge between these two worlds? The way poetry paints with words and sounds seems to offer an experience that transcends traditional boundaries. Does this mean that poetry can appeal to people who may not be drawn to one form of art but might connect through the other?
TTPham Thanh Thao
I’m struck by Montale’s assertion that poetry unites two arts—visual and musical. It reminds me of how a great poem can evoke vivid imagery while still maintaining a rhythm that almost sings. But what happens when the visual or musical elements of a poem are weak? Does the poem lose its power, or is the beauty of poetry found in the words alone? How do we balance both aspects to create something truly moving?