Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
There is no exact or approximate answer to this question. The space of options: from “has nothing in common” to “perfectly expresses the meaning of the work”.
And the point here is not only that there are rather blinkered or unprofessional art critics. And not only in the fact that there are people who are clearly ideologized and biased, who are able to twist the meanings so that even the singer of totalitarianism suddenly becomes an apologist for freedom. The most important point is that even the author does not fully know the meaning laid down by him. It happens that the author conceived one thing, but” affected ” another. And it also happens that he is driven by intuition, and unlike a reflective critic, he cannot express exactly what was important to put into the work. Finally, in many complex works, there are vague or non-obvious places that seem to be forks in the road for interpretation.
For this reason, a good review-interpretation is rather a successful assembly of meaning (based on the elements of the work), and not a game of “guessed / did not guess the author's idea”.