I definitely think that's a decision the writer needs to make when writing a poem. I find that, instinctively, some poems feel like they need to be more straightforward and immediately understandable than others. You want to paint a vivid scene or scenario for the reader. With other poems, it's the ambiguity and puzzle-like nature that make them interesting.

The issue that I most often find myself wrestling with is 'will the reader assume this is autobiography?' and 'if so, how do I feel about that?'... Which sometimes leads me to providing some extra context when sharing.

Great question!

I enjoy reading explanations written by a poet since they can enrich my understanding of the poem. But a poem without an explanation is fine of course. I appreciate poems that make sense but that also have a sense of multiple meanings, depending on how the words are interpreted by the reader. Sometimes if a poem is super complex or uses vague language not easily understood, my brain gets tired and I move on. But I might return to the poem later to try to figure it out!

I was actually just thinking about this! While I enjoy some exposition on occasion, I think that I actually prefer for poems to be left for me to interpret through my own point of view. I feel that every reader sees art and the world in a unique context that connects them to the piece in different ways. It's exciting to hear how someone's collective experience may change their final takeaway.

On the other hand, hearing the artist's intent can be really intriguing as well!

Poetry should be left open to interpretation.

However, I have found, when I better understood the life of a poet, it is easier to appreciate their poetry.

As to readers making the assumption that a poem is autobiographical, that is a tough one. I often just let the chips fall where they may, but other times I include a dedication line at the beginning or end to clarity.

Endigo and Marla are right. But do people read to learn anymore? Who reads the superb literary essays of Joseph Brodsky now? A ROOM AND A HALF and ON GRIEF AND REASON.

Brodsky, like the great Irish poet, Eavan Boland, knew that language does not end. Perhaps it finds a place to shelter for awhile. We may find it. We may not. Someone, in a different time and a different place may look for it. Language is essentially an orphan.

We're outlived by every word we know and some we don't.