I stood back and watched as they gathered around. She was late 40-ish, quite erudite, he a mid-30's and looking all the philosopher, and the younger one pushing 30 and trying to look wiser than his years allowed. They stood at the painting and stared, striking pensive poses. She spoke first."You can clearly see the dance," she said, with the earpiece of her glasses touching her lips. "It inspires a sense of passion, of dance, of exultation."
"Oh," the younger one said, "I don't see that at all. It seems to me to be an image of a battle. You can see the collisions of man and machine, the spilled blood, the fallen. It's a very violent picture."
"Strange," the other fellow piped in, "I don't see any of that." He turned his head to one side. "Clearly there is a flame, a fire, if you will. And there are shapes suggesting sexual images and innuendo. Clearly it is flames of passion."
I watched and listened because I was amused. I knew that the artist was an elephant named Tao. I knew that the artist didn't have dance or war or sex in mind. I knew that these three, with their wisdom and understanding of art, had no clue what the artist intended with the painting. I knew that we may guess at intent all we want, but the actual purpose of a painting is determined by the artist, not the interpreters.
6 comments:
Except, some artists leave the interpretation up to the viewers. They don't give it meaning so that the viewer can interpret what ever they like out of it, and not be wrong.
But I get your point. The artist/author is supposed to determine the meaning, not the viewer/reader.
But ... if the artist gives it no meaning, then it has no meaning. Allowing others to "interpret whatever they like" is the assigned meaning.
Ultimately, though, the Creator assigns the meaning, not the creation. We seem to have missed that.
Ouch.
I guess you didn't duck in time, eh? :)
Ultimately, though, the Creator assigns the meaning, not the creation. We seem to have missed that.
That's good news! Amen to it.
What's fascinating about the painting elephant is that he doesn't have language, so how could it represent anything? It can't. So here's the rub. If it can't be stated clearly, then it cannot be said. We should pass over in silence.
It doesn't make sense why anyone would try to establish a clear meaning for something that is not clear, or vice versa, unless they were addicted to controlling the world they find themselves in. That's the whole essence of sin; trying to take the Creator's place and dictate to Him the meaning.
I'm glad the creator isn't an elephant. That's a very fuzzy painting...
Of course, the primary problem (the point of the parable) is that we human beings seem to be perfectly willing and even eager to discard the Creator's purpose for His creation and substitute our own purposes.
It's foolish to assign purpose to an elephant's painting when clearly no elephant has a purpose in mind. It is equally foolish to assign a meaning to life that is counter to the meaning intended by our Creator.
Post a Comment