Von Underwood said in part in a separate thread

 I mean that focusing on the image as the basic unit of the poem, and
> defining it, or zeroing in on it in  the way Pound and others did, implies
a
> kind of immanence of the big picture in the small, so that something about
> a person's furniture and furnishings, let alone or brought to light
properly,
> tells the story of the time more eloquently than a lot of abstract talk

and

Pound's search for the radiant gists does result in
> wonderful poetry and also plugs one in to a vibrant sense of the moment
> one loses in offical histories.


Pound's Image (vortex) was not a thing.  Amy Lowell's image was a thing.
Pound's Image was more a verb than a noun.  Amy Lowell never got the idea
and went blithering on about the image as a thing.  Her blithering
essentially created a separate school of imagism.  Amygism is not
necessarily bad poetry; it is simply not Pound's idea of Imagism.

I think you mean to speak of "Luminous Detail".  A "Luminous Detail" is not
an Image, however "Luminous Detail" can be Imaged (vortexed)  into a much
greater understanding by the individual reader.  It is this vortexed
(Imaged) luminous detail that is an essential feature of the ideogramic
method found in "The Cantos".


Rick Seddon
McIntosh, NM