What do people think about ekphrastic poetry?

Given that poetry produces representations, I don't view ekphrastic poetry as being essentially unique in nature. It could be argued that 'concrete' works of art -- paintings, sculptures, photographs et al. -- capture a specific point in time and/or space, and might be regarded as suffering from those limitations; but the exponents of those art forms would argue that their work offers more than just a snapshot in time or record of a specific action/event. I guess my view is that if a poem can be read and appreciated without the need to view the referenced piece of art, then it's not restrained in any way by the 'ekphrastic' label. Some readers are happy to research references in poetry that go beyond their current or immediate sphere of knowledge, whilst others prefer to read a 'self-contained' poem and are satisfied with whatever they get out of it by reading alone.

Writers are generally encouraged to find inspiration in a wide range of subject matter, and works of art are no different, in that respect, to any other source of material. Maybe the question is whether or not people prefer ekphrastic poetry to be accompanied by the relevant subject matter when reading the poem. I prefer not to see the subject on the first reading, so the option of viewing is left open to me. I'm intrigued by the dilemma of presentation; how do you display a 3-D art work (if that is what inspired the writer) authentically in 2-D reading mode? Fortunately, poetry produces representations that are not limited by dimension.

The short answer: I'm up for cross-pollination in art, but then I do have a morbid fascination for mutants.