本論文嘗試以文藝復興的圖象詩及康明思的視覺詩為例，來闡述視覺詩的美學，並藉此以調正把視覺詩視為不夠嚴肅或「非關美學」的因襲看法。 論文共計有五部份。「序論」涵括視覺詩的定義，其簡史，以及三個由此二例視覺詩所抽繹出的美學課題。此三課題各自成一章。首項課題為視覺詩對自然的摹擬。從文藝復興的圖象詩及康明思的視覺詩中可發現，二者的視覺圖形皆源於對自然的忠實再現。然而，在此二者的再現中卻存有一知識論上的差異。次項課題乃關於詩和晝之間的互動。視覺詩既然具有高度摹擬的特性，其與繪畫（或視覺藝術）的聯繫便益形親密。因此，文藝復興的圖象詩人及康明思如何種踰越拉辛(G.E. Lessing)在詩／時間藝術與畫／空間藝術間所構築的疆界便成了論述的焦點。上述二項課題所關注者為視覺詩約寫作模式，末項課題則轉向讀者對於詩的僵化反應如何受到此模式－霍藍德(John Hollander)稱之為「違常」－的挑戰 。兩種對比包含在此討論中：一為閱讀傳統請與閱讀視覺詩之間的差異；一為閱讀文藝復興的圖象詩與閱讀康明思的視覺詩之間的差異。從首項至末項課題的探討進程所顯現的，即為形式與內容的緊密結合。此種發展帶出了「結論」的主旨：為硬親覺詩不至淪為文字遊戲－即既為「視覺」詩抑是視覺「詩」－詩人必得確保其形式與內容間的協調。 / In this thesis I am to proffer an aesthetic knowledge of visual poetry by illustrating Renaissance pattern poems and cummings' visual poems, through which to rectify the conventional view of visual poetry as insignificant or “aesthetically irrelevant.” My thesis is composed of five parts. In Introduction I outline the stakes of visual poetry, present its brief history, and bring forth three aesthetic issues abstracted from Renaissance pattern poems and cummings' visual poems. These three issues occupy respectively one chapter of my thesis. The first issue is the mimetic relation of visual poetry to nature. In their visual shapes which are the faithful representation of natural objects, I find an epistemological difference between Renaissance pattern poems and cummings' visual poems. The second issue is concerned with the interaction between poetry and painting. Now that visual poetry is highly mimetic, its linkage with painting(or visual arts) is all the more intimate. I concentrate upon, in consequence, how Renaissance pattern poems and cummings' visual poems cross respectively the border G.E. Lessing builds between poetry, the temporal art, and painting, the spatial art. The former two issues focus on the writing mode of visual poetry; then, the third one attends to how this writing－which is called by John Hollander as “aberrant”－poses a challenge to the reader's conventional response to poetry. And there are two contrasts in this discussion: one is the distinction between the reading of conventional poetry and that of visual poetry; the other the distinction between the reading of Renaissance pattern poems and that of cmmmings' visual poems. The process from the first to the third issue is, we can find, an interconnection between form and content. Such a development brings out what I asserts in Conclusion: in order to prevent visual poetry from being nothing but a word pla－i.e., to be not only visual poetry but visual poetry－visual poets have to secure the compatibility between its form and content.