Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Films and books convey ideas of norms and values accepted in a particular society. They help regulate our perception of reality. This is ideal. Now everything is a little different because the information flow is huge, there is a complete mess. But in general, the transmitted ideas of norms and values should be superimposed on the viewer's perception, based on their personal values, imposed stereotypes, beliefs and social experience in the first place. Therefore, every experience after the movie / book will be subjective. Here it is – meaning is in the eye of the beholder.
The meaning of movies and books is the idea that the creator put into them. The author puts a certain idea in his work, and the viewer or reader already determines the meaning for himself.
But it often happens that the creator does not invest anything in his work, replacing the idea and meaning, cliches and cliches.
Vivid examples of this are all the same “Transformers” or the recent “Geostorm”. And the main problem with such films and books is that they are simply not interesting to watch/read.
Returning to the question, you can add: Yes. You can say that the meaning is in the eyes of the beholder, but how can a person see the meaning of creation if it was never there?