I would guess that an ars poetica poem is a particular subspecies of reflexive poetry. There are many species of reflexive poetry, but an ars poetica poem requires an especially keen self-consciousness, because the poet's very identity goes in the description of his or her esthetic practices.

The difference between ars- poetry and reflexive poetry can not be made by reflexion. It needs experience.

As experience is laying our of the realm of science., it becomes difficult.

Computers can perfectly well imitate ars- poetry, special programs are written for this purpose. They are working hard at this. So there is a confrontation of powers.

This can give birth to a new way of thinking.

A poet can give his last word away and then?

Art uses total different neuronbindings which we call inspiration. But afterwards or at the same time, there is also a kind of reflexion so the 2 are going together.

Pure poetry is only impotant for the poet himself because he has to listen to the voice. Afterwards he can bring the poetry to the public as a gift, but they are of no special value as long as there is no receptor who picks it up.

Ars- poetry leads mostly to a depression. Bringing up poetry is painful and joyful at the same time. The neurons are firing in many directions.

Probably because the poet can touch a whole world with only a couple af words.

The whole can be compared with music, free -jazz can be art or noice and nearly no one can tell the difference.

To write art-poetry is becoming in another state of mind. To read poetry is to adjust your mind to the frequency of the poem. So you rewrite the poetry or music whitin yourself and become part of it.

Personally I got my highest state of consciousness in the field of art by the music of Steve Lacy, the books of Johan Daisne and the Acmeist poetry.

The difference between experience and reflection is specious: all human experience requires some degree of reflection, however tenuous, as Kant, the late nineteen-century Neo-Kantians, and twentieth-century phenomenologists have held. Therefore all ars poetica poetry requires reflection, but of a special kind. It seems to me that you have to know your own poetic principles beforehand prior to setting them down as poetry.

Now, as to artificial intelligence authoring ars poetica poetry, let alone any poetry at all, I respectfully find this problematic, just as I find it problematic that a computer can compose a Tenth Symphony of Beethoven. It is also a problem to introduce neurons-- a product of physiological science-- into the operation of poetic composition, which is so sublime and elusive as to escape physiological analogy.

All these opinions I offer here in a non-dogmatic frame of mind, amenable to change.

The secret of poetry is, if it is written directly from the origin of source, so without reflection, it can manifest itself. Only if you can trust your unconscious you can do it that way. Perhaps it will sound irrational, but in a certain way poetry is also a kind of Zen.

If you write poetry without reflection--which is impossible unless it is automatic writing--, you cannot have ars poetica poetry by definition. Ars poetica poetry is metaliterature, It is writing about writing. Ergo, it is writing reflecting on itself.

I think I understand, if reflection is not the same as thinking. It comes from

another source.

'It is reflective on itsel'f is beautiful said, and it starts out of itself.

I often heard; the first sentence you get for free.

I agree with Nelson (above) ars-poetica writing is writing about poetry.It reflects on the nature of the genre itself.

Could someone give me a definition and examples of "reflexive poetry"? I haven't come across that label before.

Dear Margaret, you may find different definitions in this article:

Eva Müller-Zettelmann, ""A Frenzied Oscillation': Auto-Reflexivity in the Lyric." Theory into Poetry: New Approaches to the Lyric. Eva Müller-Zettelmann and Margaret Rubik (eds.), Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2005. pp. 125-145.

This is an old question, but nevertheless:

" Now, as to artificial intelligence authoring ars poetica poetry, let alone any poetry at all, I respectfully find this problematic, just as I find it problematic that a computer can compose a Tenth Symphony of Beethoven."

Computers do not "author" anything. They are the means by which *people* do some things in a new way. I was sure that "computer" will beat the world champion in chess rather soon, and that happened long ago. I would not be surprised if computers began to produce better things than Beethoven, but computers are only the means by which people materialise their abilities.

There is no such thing as "artificial intelligence"; all intelligence comes from *sentient* beings and it *exists* only for sentient beings. The fact that people use computer as the means (tools) by which they materialise *their* intelligence does not mean that the means (tools) became intelligent. We must differentiate between the human intelligence and the *functioning* of machines programmed by the human intelligence. The second part of my book "On Time and Mind" (Amazon / Kindle) deals with such issues in more detail.

I agree with M.Nelson Orringer and I think too that an ars poetica poem is a particular subspecies of reflexive poetry.

thank you for all other answers

greetings