There is no such thing as "vague poems with multiple meanings"...

There is no such thing as "vague poems with multiple meanings". Art is the manifestation of a person's mind and will and as such embodies that person's internal world. You either understand him or don't. To assume a piece of art is divorced from the mind that gave it birth and that it contains no inherent meaning is pure hubris.

Attached: diagram.png (500x500, 13K)

So the artist can't intentionally make the poem vague with multiple possible meanings? Retard

Thread died for this etc

It can but there's still predetermined intention behind it. It is not open for interpretation.

I can interpret art anyway I want :)

Attached: 1565453821649.jpg (593x595, 42K)

the author is dead.

>It is not open for interpretation.
Why not?

What if the author intentionally leaves it open to interpretation?

Because it's an expression of the artist's mind. The artist has already decided what he wants to express. If your "interpretation" is different from what the artist intended, it's no different from misinterpreting or mishearing what someone tells you in casual conversation.

What if I went out of my way to make sure it can be interpreted one of 3 ways? Sure, this poem looks to be about having a song stuck in your head and exaggerating it beyond absurdity for the sole purpose of being edgy on the surface, but it also can (and should) be interpreted as what a person with childhood abuse goes through as an adult.

I hate retards that think there's only ever one right meaning. The best poetry means something different to certain people. People who haven't been told how worthless they are by their caretakers so often that they end up believing it can't interpret it in the latter way, but I'm not going to be assmad when they don't, even if I meant for it to be read that way.

Is this... an intelligent post?

>internal world
now that's vague and has multiple meaning

I’m just talking about the concept itself of vague vs specific. I would probably agree that any one vague thing a person may write could be tied to some specific source, but then there’s the entire other half to any written words, which is what the other everybody-else end reading it gets, and how it is received. Both exist at the same time, the writingas it is coming from the writer and then how it is received by the reader. Something being vague but still technically specific to any one thing may be irrelevant. On that note though, then there’s the approach of writing intentionally ambiguous in the mind of the writer, where the writer themselves might not even know what they are writing. Does that come from somewhere specific? Maybe, but is this a specific thing or is it maybe an amalgamate of multiple things from multiple different places? This could be irrelevant as well.

What about when a concept in mathematics is reinterpreted and applied to a new area of study? Is that also invalid according to you?

So what happens when the author is long dead and all we have are the poems themselves?

Even if we take what you say to be true, how do we determine what is the "true" meaning? Even the author may not be able to capture the full breadth of their mind and contributing factors of their work. If they're dead or never bothered to write down what they were thinking about at the time, it seems quite impractical to try and derive a singular true interpretation.

The moral of The Boy Who Cried Wolf is to not get CAUGHT lying too much.

Who cares. The worst art is that which adheres to what you say strictly. The best is what is so multilayered and interpretation-tolerant that the consumers far outstrip the creator in their understandings making him seem an infantile factoryworker. Actually that's what artists are, people who are good at making this for others, in their collective variability, to take above and beyond.

Some things are created to invoke ideas within people. Not to plant ideas within them. Some artists create things with the intent of each unique person to experience something different, therefore there cannot be no universal meaning.

Bitch lasagna you suppose that because the author had an intention that intention is magically transported into the mind of the reader?
>B-but the point of good art is convey a message effectively
So what if it is? Readers can learn things authors can't accept about themselves, can have cultural distances from the author and bring a totally different set of experiences to reading a text than the author had, life ensures a poem is never the same in two minds.
So why should the experience of a work that a reader has be thrown away because you worship an inevitably imperfect model of what an author most likely intended a work to be interpreted as?

Fuck your reductionism and everything that comes with it

the Yea Forums thread is dead you can stop >>ing me now

>The artist can intentionally make their art vague and open to multiple interpretations, but they're not open for interpretation

Come on

->

If the thread's dead, stop refreshing the page

nice bump

>Art is the manifestation of a person's mind and will
No
I mean, in a way you are correct, but that just shifts the problem of complexity of interpretation from textual interpretation to psychological interpretation of the creator's mind, which is just as vague.

>>B-but the point of good art is convey a message effectively
>So what if it is?
It's not, though. If the artist wanted efficiency and precision in communication he'd refer to concrete existing concepts and things, instead of inventing a bunch of them and leave it to readers to connect them with reality as they see fit.