Ambiguity. I hate that word. For me, it summates everything that's wrong with artistic instruction and general academia nowadays. The deconstructionists have systematically eradicated intelligent analysis from literary and cinematic criticism. They say ambiguity is inevitable, that it should be embraced as the apex of self-conscious sophistication, that, when deliberate, it constitutes a "complex" and "nuanced" approach to reality. Communicators and ambitious artists know better.
Ambiguity is not complexity. Complexity is the tacit acknowledgement that reality is subject to innumerable interpretations and cannot easily be reduced to binary oppositions with obvious moral polarity. Ambiguity is a banal slavery to moral relativity at the cost of any *gasp!* transcendent meaning or purpose beyond reminding the consumer that life is messy. This isn't sophistication -- it's apathetic cowardice.
Ambiguity in an author indicates indecision. In a director it reveals confusion. In an artist of any kind it's a blatant failure of the will. Without distinct clarity, without commitment to a particular self-interpretation, without the courage to stand for something, to deliver a message, to embody a theme, art is ... boring.
Yes, boring. Is that not the worst possible dismissal?
I'm not calling for a didactic approach to art. Normal rules still apply. Art must show, not tell. The consumer must be trusted to understand the artist's intent without being beat over the head with explanation. After all, "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Persuasion must be subtle to be effective.
What I'm calling for is a higher form of art, one which both embraces and tempers the inclinations of communication. Art with a message shown, not told. This is no easy challenge for the artist, which is why it's so rarely achieved. But should that discourage us? No!
Hehehe ... listen to what I'm telling you!
What if art, when open to two possible interpretations, is not saying, "it could be either way and I'm too wimpy to tell you which it is so you decide," but instead is saying, "it could be either way... because it's really both." That is definitely complexity, but I think it falls closer to ambiguity than anything you've granted the possibility of existence to.
ReplyDeleteI'm still not seeing, btw, how Jabberwocky is ambiguous.
~Laura
Ha! The fact that I've just now noticed your comment goes to show how badly I neglect my blogs.
ReplyDeleteIf part of a story's thematic statement is that "it could be either way," then great. The artist's at least come to a conclusive decision. But to dismiss a thematic dilemma by telling the consumer "we can't know" (in the spirit of postmodernism) or "it's wrong to draw conclusions" (in the spirit of political correctness) is weakness in the best of circumstances and sophistry in the worst. I of course base this argument on my firm belief in absolutes. Any argument outside this belief (this truth) would be a path leading straight to the quagmire of postmodernism and political correctness, the artistic influence of which I am incensed about.
"Jabberwocky" is ambiguous due to its rejection of semantic definitions. But it's more than that: it's also cowardly. It relies entirely upon cliched fairy-tale tropes to move its story forward while discarding meaning by the wayside. It creates no new ideas, visualizations, creatures, props, or environments. Maybe it'd have been great as a graphic novel, but only because the illustrator would've done all the work.
Yes, I understand that the point of the poem was to demonstrate that semantic meaning is relative and ultimately indefinite. Yes, in this sense one could say that Carroll's communication was successful. I'm just contesting the import of his message, if message it was intended to be: it's something we all know from the time we start making up words for fun as children. As a story, I think "Jabberwocky" stinks.