3 Answers

  1. Yes, but. Any message must be clear to the person to whom it is addressed, otherwise it is not a message at all. Chinese doesn't have to be clear to the Russians, it's for the Chinese.

    Art is addressed to an indefinite circle of people, “to all who will understand it”, which means that it should not be understood by everyone, but it should be understood by at least someone. It should be created for the purpose of being understood. And if you don't understand – well, then you didn't get into the audience.

  2. Well… How to say it. It should have a meaning, a message.

    Someone can specifically bend, wrap their message in several layers, hit the meta-irony… In principle, there is nothing wrong with this, but recently there has been a growing tendency to justify hackery and mediocrity by saying that “you didn't understand anything”, “this is art, you can't understand it”, “it's not given to everyone”. Let's say that not everyone likes Kafka or Dostoevsky, that's one thing. But any kind of daub, when someone has put their finger or pistol on the canvas and sells it for millions of dollars – what is it all about?

    Personally, to be honest, I am for straightforward and specific creativity. Yes, with references, yes, with subtext, but with the most explicit main idea. Let there be at least 10 sub-meanings, but the leitmotif should be visible to the naked eye

  3. It should be clear if such a task is set by the author or customer. In addition, the level of clarity may depend on those who will consume this creativity. If you are going to do something for a small audience of knowledgeable, sophisticated people or some connoisseurs of a certain direction, then there may not be a need to chew something in detail in the most creative product. And those who from the very beginning do not understand what the salt is can, if desired, delve into and ask those who understand it. As for all sorts of literary, musical, artistic, etc. works with supposedly “deep meanings”, then sometimes you will listen to the analysis of some “specialist” and there they invent such nonsense. It seems that the author of such a literary analysis himself invented it and screwed it up in his sick head and passes it off as the hidden meaning of the work. And with the help of all sorts of deep meanings and high matters, some figures like to justify their hack work and mediocrity.

Leave a Reply