Well it’s an art film. The purpose of art is to evoke emotions, to inspire dialogue. Yours is one possible interpretation. Ultimately, who’s to say it’s not valid?
That’s quite non-committal… of course art is supposed to evoke emotions… but that’s not getting me anywhere I wasn’t already… I was asking about the artist’s intent
No I mean specifically this artwork, this author, not art in general. Am a professional artist myself so I have some notion what this debate entails, but I was curious about the specifics of this film
Well it’s an art film. The purpose of art is to evoke emotions, to inspire dialogue. Yours is one possible interpretation. Ultimately, who’s to say it’s not valid?
That’s quite non-committal… of course art is supposed to evoke emotions… but that’s not getting me anywhere I wasn’t already… I was asking about the artist’s intent
Ambiguity is often part of the intent.
You have stumbled into an art-philosophy debate that’s centuries old and will never end.
No I mean specifically this artwork, this author, not art in general. Am a professional artist myself so I have some notion what this debate entails, but I was curious about the specifics of this film