What purpose does my interpretation add to the validity of your
expression?
Absolutely none! I'm not interested in the _validation_ of my
expression! I couldn't care less if the world thinks it's a good
piece of work or not. And I'm not interested in establishing a "right
or wrong" answer about how the viewer interprets it. But I _am_ very
interested in what the story's effects on the reader are. I want to
understand the psychological process which leads to the mental
construction of a narrative on the part of a viewer. It is impossible
to understand this process without viewer feedback on what they saw in
it.
To put it simply: I am interested in technique, not rating systems.
The writing itself is "the story," all that remains is for the
individual to _appreciate_ it, not understand, or interpret it.
What we must keep in mind in all of this, is that we are trying to
model the unreal, or more accurately asking the viewer to accept as
real, irrational relationships between rational objects.
In fact in the words of Max Ernst, what we are trying to do is "rebel
against the exterior distribution of objects."
I, personally, don't have these goals. I am very interested in how
ordinary people will make totally rational interpretations of
seemingly irrational or random phenomena. Metaphorically speaking, I
want to understand how people see pictures in clouds, or go about
naming constellations.
Having said all of that, I guess our rational minds, through years of
conditioning, demands an interpretation of what we see or read. So I
will give you two interpretations of your imagery:
One:
[click here for image]
This is Dadaist irrelevance. It has nothing to say about my earlier
essay. The point I am trying to make, and that you resist, is that
most people will attempt to come up with _rational_ interpretations of
Surrealist pieces, due to the "years of societal conditioning." What
I want to do is understand the process, so that I can lead the viewers
_away_ from the strictly rational and obvious, if I so choose. Yes, I
want to manipulate the viewer. I have no moral dilemma about this.
Two:
What the owl said masturbating with the words of Dylan Thomas,
could only be exemplified by the rhythmic beating of the mountain
against the angel's headless wings.
This naturally caused the priests of solace to shout with the
sound of clocks running backwards against the railway tracks of
time.
Of course the man digging the hole in the virgin's floorboards in
the doorway of the window, could have explained it thoroughly had
there been a handle on the shovel made of straw.
To my rational mind, this also does not answer or interpret my
original essay. There is almost no sharing or reference of common
symbols between the two works. I mention nuns, you mention priests.
That seems to be about it. We both have the obligatory sexual
references, but that is borne of the commonality of the subject, and
not any intrinsic relationship between our documents.
In fact, when I look at my own essay, I realize that my fear of it
falling apart is primarily borne of the rapid succession of images and
symbols that are developed. Very few of them are repeated or
developed further, so I fear that we may be left with the afterburn of
a rapid slide show. Repetition and linkage are necessary to produce
_pattern_, which in turn is what is needed for a viewer to produce
narrative.
I'll now offer my "rationalist" interpretation of your essay - the
story that I read into it.
The owl flying over the mountain is a symbol of pre-Christian sexual
freedom, which is being decried by the Christian priests and their
angel. The priests want to turn back the hands of time to a morally
upright age - but perhaps if they turn the hands back too far, they
will wind up back in the pre-Christian era. Meanwhile, a common man
is ambivalently fearful of his own sexual attitudes as promulgated by
the Church. He fears that he may in fact be a rapist, and that the
reader of this essay will view him as such.
This is a story format that I could probably hand off to most people,
and they would at least understand that I was trying to communicate
something specific by it. They may not _agree_ with it, but they
would recognize it as coherent thought. So the exercise that I am
interested in, is examining the viewer's transformation of incoherent
thought, to coherent thought. I'd be interested in people's reactions
to this interpretation: what are the mechanisms by which I got from
point A to point B?
Cheers,
Brandon