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!
