“Why I'm Not a Painter” by Frank O'Hara consistently draws parallels between painting and poetry. O'Hara uses the title to establish these parallels. Next, he proceeds to use the first stanza to capture the reader's interest as to why he is, in fact, not a painter. The second stanza draws the reader into the world of a painter. Finally, the third stanza enters the mind of O'Hara as a poet, allowing the reader to draw comparisons between a painter and a poet. O'Hara uses the flow from the title through his three stanzas to capture the reader's mind, raising a question: What is the difference between painting and poetry? O'Hara's purpose in writing "Why I Am Not a Painter" is to show that painters and poets reveal the same ideas through different methods and, in essence, poetry is painting on paper while painting is poetry on canvas. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayIt is appropriate to follow O'Hara's titled poem through the stanzas in order, because he uses a very precise style to show his ideas. “Why I am not a painter” is, essentially, a logical argument for the similarities between poets and painters that begins with the title of the poem. By titling the poem “Why I Am Not a Painter,” O'Hara forces the reader to invest interest in discovering why, in fact, Frank O'Hara is not a painter. Indeed, “Why I Am Not a Painter” seems like an appropriate name for an essay, not a poem. Therefore, O'Hara makes the reader expect a logical and structured explanation that reveals why he is not a painter. Instead of providing this logical explanation, O'Hara uses the title to create a digression in his comparison between Mike Goldberg's painting and O'Hara's poetry. O'Hara's first verse appears rather simplistic. Looking at the structure of the poem without reading it, it seems that the first stanza, because it is only three lines, should contain much less meaning than the significantly longer second and third stanzas. However, the entire focus of the poem is consolidated in the first stanza. The poem is all about “Why?” by O'Hara. (line 2). O'Hara's first stanza repeats the idea that he is not a painter and makes the reader believe that he will establish the differences that separate poets and painters. Instead, O'Hara's statement “I think I'd rather be/a painter” (3) causes the reader to question the purpose of the poem. One asks, "well, why aren't you a painter if you'd rather be?" This sets the transition to the second stanza's description of Mike Goldberg's painting, as the reader wonders why being a painter is so fascinating to O'Hara. By interrupting the first stanza after “Well,” (3) O'Hara prepares the reader for a transition to an explanation of why he is not a painter. Instead, O'Hara switches to describing Mike Goldberg at the beginning of the second verse. This is O'Hara's second challenge to his readers' expectations. Challenging the reader's expectations, O'Hara sets out to show the similarities between painters and poets. Because the reader no longer knows what to expect, O'Hara can avoid any form of logical progression in the poem. He develops casual associations between everything that is happening in his life. As the days pass and the painting develops, O'Hara makes two important observations. First he states that “the painting/ is happening” (11-12). O'Hara shows painting as a continuous process, as an evolution towards a final product. This is his first line between painting and poetry. At the end of the second stanza, O'Hara observes of the sardines "all that's left are just letters" (15-16). Ultimately, the painting evolves to meet a final vision.O'Hara mirrors this final vision in "Why I'm Not a Painter" leading the reader to a final realization that there is little separation between painting and poetry. The third stanza of "Why I Am Not a Painter" shifts the focus of the poem to O'Hara's life as a poet. The transition from Mike Goldberg's painting to O'Hara's poetry creates a shift in which the reader still thinks about painting while reading about poetry. Therefore, the reader can make the necessary connections between painting and poetry. The third stanza is the most important part of the poem. It is where O'Hara draws parallels between Mike Goldberg's SARDINES and O'Hara's ORANGES, finally establishing a direct parallel between painting and poetry. Starting with “One day I'm thinking about/ a color: orange” (17-18) O'Hara makes a direct connection between his method of writing and Goldberg's method of painting. In the same way that Goldberg thinks of sardines and puts them in a painting, O'Hara thinks of oranges and begins to write a poem about them. This is O'Hara's first obvious revelation that there is little difference between poetry and painting. He continues by repeating “the days pass” (24) of the second verse. One immediately realizes how similar his descriptions of the two trials are. O'Hara's poem ends without mentioning oranges in the same way that sardines are virtually invisible in Goldberg's painting. The connections between poet and painter are as simple as “I drink; let's drink” (7), and as complex as avoiding the triggering subject in their works. O'Hara laid the foundation for a thesis that the only difference between poets and painters is the medium by which they produce their art. The third stanza focuses heavily on the lines: “There should be/ much more, not of orange, of/ words of how terrible orange is/ and life” (21-24). For O'Hara, the The poem's triggering topic is less important than the work as a whole. Since sardines are not the focus of Goldberg's painting, oranges are not the focus of O'Hara's poem. However, each ends up developing into a satisfying work in the his whole. Goldberg ends with a satisfying painting, and O'Hara ends with twelve poems without ever mentioning oranges. This connection forms the end of the poem. O'Hara's last two lines conclude the poem with the most important connection between the Goldberg's painting and O'Hara's poem: It's twelve poems, I call them ORANGES And one day in a gallery I see Mike's painting, called SARDINES. The comparison between the final product of Sardines and Oranges shows the reader that Goldberg and O 'Hara arrive at extremely similar finished products. They use a similar time frame and allow their work to evolve freely towards whatever end it reaches. The works are so similar that even the titles are similar. Sardines and oranges, simple foods, inspire works that move completely away from the subject to become noteworthy works. When the reader realizes that the end product is essentially the same, a conclusion makes more sense. The only reason O'Hara distinguishes between painting and poetry is the difference in the materials used. Otherwise, art is a universal medium. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Without the difference in materials, the inspiration and process involved in the work are the same. So the reader must go back to find out why, in fact, O'Hara is not a painter. Connectivity exists throughout the poem. The first stanza puts poets and painters in the same light by grouping them together. In the second and third stanza the action of the poet and the painter is practically the same. So this extreme level of connectivity, combined with trying to answer this question,.