Food For Thought: Absolute Truth vs. Individual Interpretation

by Arturo Virzi 

There are two theories of communication regarding meaning. Is the true meaning of an authors work inside the authors head? or is the meaning endless because the knowledge regarding any work of art is endless.

In other words: do you believe art has absolute truth or do you believe the meaning of art reveals itself through individual interpretations?

A perfect example for this debate is Inception. Do you think that Nolan knows if the top fell or kept spinning? Or do you think he wanted us to debate the film endlessly. And if Nolan knows the answer to these question, does it even matter. Shouldn’t art speak for itself even when it doesn’t hand us the answer in a silver platter.

Similar to Blade Runner as well since there are two different versions of the film. Ridley Scott has stated numerous times that Deckard is a Replicant, while the screenwriter says he isn’t. Is he? Isn’t he? And does it matter?

Since everything is a sing of a sing, and the qualities of meaning are all metaphysical, the closes things we’ve got to it (meaning) is language. We watch incredibly ambiguous and vague films at the art house cinema down our street and immediately associate them with “hidden meanings”. We might be convinced of our interpretation, and might not even see it as such. But what if we meet someone close to the author of said work and he said we were wrong. Would we? Does the person closer to the source have a higher authority than we do when it comes to judging his work? Does a creator ever emancipate himself from his work, or do they remain linked.

The closer you are to the author, the close you are to the real meaning. Or does the work speaks for itself, and the true meaning lies in the interpretation of the audience.

Absolute Truth vs. Individual Interpretation.