On her blog, Kimberlee asked: "Do you ever think that people over think things way to much and assume a piece of art work to be much more intentional than it actually is?"
There are certainly times when we find more in a piece than the artist intended. I'll continue the literature example, as I find it the easiest medium for discussion, but the same applies to all art. Like Kimberlee, I experienced the same moment of disbelief in one of my high school literature classes in which I could not believe that the author had actually put so much thought into the symbolism. Sometimes in real life things just happen. Yet, this seems to be against the laws of literature, where everything has to have a meaning. But, does it? The storm might not represent the characters inner turmoil; it could just be a warm front hitting a cold front, just like they say on the weather channel.
And yet, sometimes there really is that depth of meaning. Sometimes, symbolism occurs without the artist's realizing it until later, and then going back and shaping it. For example, I am a writer. In a piece I was working on recently, I compared the sensations one of the characters experienced while trapped in a crowd as drowning. Later on, without thinking about it, I used drowning imagery again with the same character. Only when I looked back on my work and realized what I had done, did I decide that the character couldn't swim and, thus, anything connected with drowning or water, literally or through comparative imagery, represents extreme danger to her. At this point, I'll probably go back and add more allusions to water, but it wasn't something I planned to have from the very beginning.
What merits does the use of symbolism add to a piece of art? Does it make the art more artistic?
No comments:
Post a Comment