Catching Up
It has been over a MONTH since I've last written (gosh!!!!!!) and I wanted to start this out by saying sorry! I've been extremely busy with life recently and haven't had the time to work on this site. I'm hoping my schedule will free up a bit around August/September, but I can't make any guarantees. I haven't stopped being curious; in fact, I've been thinking just as much as normal about our society, human interaction, morals, and the like. I just haven't had the time nor energy to document any of those thoughts, properly organize them, and then update a website about it. I try to keep little notes to make pages about and expand on later, but I'm too lazy to actually go back and look at them. I just want to make it clear that I do still love and update this site about my findings and emphasize that I have simply been busy. Yay!!!!
The Artist and Guideance
Many of my favorite artists of whom I trust wholeheartedly have expressed one specific ideal time and time again: that they should not explain their work. As someone fascinated by analysis with a deep-rooted goal to understand everything I love, this has always puzzled and frustrated me. Why would they not want to explain themselves? What was the point in writing something in the first place if what it means doesn't seem to matter? I want to explore this idea a little more going forward.
I've seen it said for different reasons. Mitski said what matters is that the viewer sees what they need to as long as it helps them, System of a Down said that people won't think for themselves if the meaning is told to them, and I believe Buck-Tick said that the original meaning dissipates as soon as art is released publicly, leaving only scattered interpretations to take the test of time. These statements all have substance (and my words are, of course, meaningless next to that of real artists that have experienced publicly releasing work and watching the masses interpret it in their own ways) in their own lovely ways, but I have to disagree with the baseline of these beliefs. Like I said earlier, what is the point in speaking if you're not willing to go through the processes of making your words mean something? Why give your work meaning if the meaning isn't meant to be perceived?
I do think personal interpretation is important, but it has its limits. We will associate art with things that have nothing to do with it and give it a meaning of our own that won't make snese or have any sentimental value to anyone else, and that's okay. That's what makes it special. The personal experience is the most important part of consuming art because it's your experience. But if meaningful art isn't capable of capturing something deeper and making an impact, what is the point of giving it meaning? Depth holds no use if it can't be used to emphasize something. I think artists have a natural responsibility to guide viewers. They don't have to explain every detail of their work, but they should emphasize and elaborate on the key points. Even if the meaning itself is something completely up for interpretation, as long as important points have been given, their job is done. This can easily be done in the piece of art itself, but if not, I do think artists should explain themselves outside of the artwork. You can let your fans do the exploring and guessing themselves, but you can't just leave them with nothing to go off of.
I think that's all I have to say for now. I'd be interested in hearing what other people have to say about this and I'd like to ask people, "Should artists explain their work?" Philosophy is nothing but the constant desire and effort to question, process, conclude, and reevaluate. Have fun and play around with questions like these. This wasn't a very serious or introspective article, just me wanting to provoke discussion,
This site was coded by hand with much love and tears. Thanks so much for stopping by! Don't forget your umbrella on the way out. ˚ʚ♡ɞ˚