... is the correct one: The artist's (assuming they reveal it in an interview or something) or the viewer's (they usually interpret while watching the work, before watching/reading the filmmaker's interview)? Whatever the answer is, does it also apply to movies and shows?
shareThat's tricky. If an artwork has ambiguous elements, then it's inevitable that the work will mean different things to different people. If the artist hasn't officially stated what his or her work means, it's hard to see how anyone else can have the "correct" interpretation. Then again, I once read words to the effect that if a work of art has to be explained, then it's a failure. (When a comedian tells a joke, he shouldn't need to explain the joke to make his audience laugh.)
"Whatever the answer is, does it also apply to movies and shows?"
I guess so. Every person who's seen David Lynch's Eraserhead has a different interpretation of what the film means. One interpretation is as valid as any other. Even David Lynch has said he isn't quite sure what it's about.
Since your thread on FG went pretty stupid real fast, I'll present some unassailable reasoning here.
Since this is a movie board, I'll use movies.
Have y'ever watched a movie when you were a kid? And then watched it again ten thousand days later and found it means something quite different than it used to?
That's why there is no "correct interpretation". You change, and so the artwork changes. You are different from me, and so your interpretation differs from mine.
One of my most watched movies is 2001:ASO. I have constructed several different interpretations over the decades. One of them, supported by the movie (or, at least, not denied by the movie) is that the 'alien intelligence' planting monoliths on Earth and its moon is nefarious in its intent, influencing and maneuvering humankind toward the end of destroying itself.
I don't feel like going into big detail, but nothing in the movie says it ain't so. The most commonly agreed interpretation is also not denied by the movie... but neither is it explicitly supported. Because the movie is open to interpretation.
Kubrick has his own idea what it's about, but that's all it is: his own opinion. If you watch the movie without knowing what he says, does that mean any divergence in your own experience of 2001 is 'wrong'? Of course not. It merely means you are thinking for yourself, bringing your own filter of life to bear on the movie.
Coming up with one's own interpretation seems, to me, to be the ONLY 'right' interpretation.
Well one should take the "arguments" route which you would take if you were doing a degree. You take all interpretations and then come to your own conclusion.
share