What a silly thing to fight about! Bobster, why do you care so deeply about direct evidence supporting an interpretation of a piece of art? Should every post on this sight contain links to substantiated evidence supporting each and every hypothesis and interpretation? I'm not attacking anyone here, I just find it intriguing. Bobster, you clearly pride yourself on the knowledge that you have on this subject (and many others I assume), isn't it enough for you to know these things? Or is the knowledge not really what you are after? It seems that more important to you than the knowledge is belittling those who don't possess the same knowledge, and subsequently affording yourself a sort of pedestal to stand on. You clearly are an intelligent individual and in my opinion that should be enough for ANY person. The fact is that most people don't possess the capacity to identify the things that (seemingly) come so easy to you. Your intelligence is limited only by your ego, just as it is with many intelligent individuals. You're smart, it's obvious. You don't need to rub it in anyone's face, they already know. Some of the interpretations left by others are of the sort that simply CAN'T offer solid, concrete evidence as they are based on a feeling or emotion. Short of talking directly to the writer (...), it is impossible to substantiate. Even if someone had spoken with the artist (as you claim to have done), the conversation itself is impossible to substantiate. So as you see, you are guilty of the same transgressions as those you accuse, albeit in a different manner. Good art spawns false interpretation because good art reaches the masses and appeals to them in a personal way. If you turn it into a research project, the art dies. I dare say that you do not want to be responsible for any fraction of that reality...
What a silly thing to fight about! Bobster, why do you care so deeply about direct evidence supporting an interpretation of a piece of art? Should every post on this sight contain links to substantiated evidence supporting each and every hypothesis and interpretation? I'm not attacking anyone here, I just find it intriguing. Bobster, you clearly pride yourself on the knowledge that you have on this subject (and many others I assume), isn't it enough for you to know these things? Or is the knowledge not really what you are after? It seems that more important to you than the knowledge is belittling those who don't possess the same knowledge, and subsequently affording yourself a sort of pedestal to stand on. You clearly are an intelligent individual and in my opinion that should be enough for ANY person. The fact is that most people don't possess the capacity to identify the things that (seemingly) come so easy to you. Your intelligence is limited only by your ego, just as it is with many intelligent individuals. You're smart, it's obvious. You don't need to rub it in anyone's face, they already know. Some of the interpretations left by others are of the sort that simply CAN'T offer solid, concrete evidence as they are based on a feeling or emotion. Short of talking directly to the writer (...), it is impossible to substantiate. Even if someone had spoken with the artist (as you claim to have done), the conversation itself is impossible to substantiate. So as you see, you are guilty of the same transgressions as those you accuse, albeit in a different manner. Good art spawns false interpretation because good art reaches the masses and appeals to them in a personal way. If you turn it into a research project, the art dies. I dare say that you do not want to be responsible for any fraction of that reality...