Well, for one thing, its a bit of a stretch to call that poem "art". For another, the message (I'm going to fornicate with your daughter) is, well, disturbing, to put it mildly. I wouldn't exactly take a poem like that as "just good old political commentary" if it was delivered to me.
His poem is artistic enough to cause disagreement about the message. Is it about fornication, or is it about rocking the inner world of a do-gooder liberal who lives a safe, suburban life?
I would argue that his message was "White liberals are shallow", and that he used the interacial relationship to demonstrate the professor's shallowness.
"Well, for one thing, its a bit of a stretch to call that poem "art". "
Not to get into a debate with you about what is and isn't art, but you need to read the "qualifications" of how to consider something art...one of which is the artists intentions...in this case, the artist truly intended for this to be a work of art (literary art in this case). Now, that being said...as someone else said "there is good art and bad art". :o)
"For another, the message (I'm going to fornicate with your daughter) is, well, disturbing, to put it mildly"
First off, he states that he didn't know she had a three year old daughter. The daughter in the poem was clearly "of age". Secondly, because a work of art is losely based on "real life" situations does not mean that it is a depiction of someone's inner desires. (omg..I'm sounding like a lib)
" I wouldn't exactly take a poem like that as "just good old political commentary" if it was delivered to me."
And by your qualifications of what is art, political cartoons are not art. Which is entirely not true. ;o)
Just some observations. You can call it bad art, and while I find it amusing I wouldn't put it up there with the Brownings, therefore by the standards which I measure art, it's the work of an amature...but amusing.
An important thing to remember when critiquing art....art is subjective ;o)