With your quote "Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound strive for obscurity" - I think that it works in terms of teaching, not always necessarily art.
I have mixed feelings about it, because hiding meaning from much of the audience can prevent the composition from expressing something to all those people as it otherwise could. If one purpose of the art is to communicate and give something to the audience, that opportunity is then largely lost within obscurity. It can also feel like exclusivism when only a narrow group of people who understand the references can understand the work, giving the impression that a particular body of knowledge gives status in terms of hierarchy/belonging.
It's possible to have intertextuality without it being too inaccessible. On the other hand, audiences often enjoy figuring out allusions to other ideas, solving the mystery, and also having imagery that is both relatable and non-specific enough to hold any individual's experiences and perspectives.
Poetry is able to overlap ideas and images in ways that aren't always simple or perfectly aligned, but play at the edges of comparison. It can layer many impressions and intuitions together to create an atmosphere, give weight to questions, or illustrate experiences of ambiguity. Some parts will be more blurred or out of focus than the parts that are intended to be specifically clear.
Many writers' stories are too personal for the specific situation to be described in full, so there is privacy in only giving incomplete clues as well, or mixing fiction with personal reflection. It can be relatable even without all the details being pinned down.
That said, there are interpretations that work, and there are some that destroy the integrity of the text or its context. The readings that make sense can be meaningful to each person in different ways, as well as possibly being a connection to parts of the originally intended meaning.
With your quote "Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound strive for obscurity" - I think that it works in terms of teaching, not always necessarily art.
I have mixed feelings about it, because hiding meaning from much of the audience can prevent the composition from expressing something to all those people as it otherwise could. If one purpose of the art is to communicate and give something to the audience, that opportunity is then largely lost within obscurity. It can also feel like exclusivism when only a narrow group of people who understand the references can understand the work, giving the impression that a particular body of knowledge gives status in terms of hierarchy/belonging.
It's possible to have intertextuality without it being too inaccessible. On the other hand, audiences often enjoy figuring out allusions to other ideas, solving the mystery, and also having imagery that is both relatable and non-specific enough to hold any individual's experiences and perspectives.
Poetry is able to overlap ideas and images in ways that aren't always simple or perfectly aligned, but play at the edges of comparison. It can layer many impressions and intuitions together to create an atmosphere, give weight to questions, or illustrate experiences of ambiguity. Some parts will be more blurred or out of focus than the parts that are intended to be specifically clear.
Many writers' stories are too personal for the specific situation to be described in full, so there is privacy in only giving incomplete clues as well, or mixing fiction with personal reflection. It can be relatable even without all the details being pinned down.
That said, there are interpretations that work, and there are some that destroy the integrity of the text or its context. The readings that make sense can be meaningful to each person in different ways, as well as possibly being a connection to parts of the originally intended meaning.
[Edit: update]