Indirect communication is absorbed subconsciously. When you look at cinematography, for example, the same scene can fall flat or grip you like a vice depending on how it’s visually presented. That’s not just magic, there are layers of structure and communication that your subconscious picks up on, which someone had to put thought into. The aim isn’t to hide the point but to reinforce it, the direct and indirect stuff work in concert.
If all the communication is indirect, that can be a hallmark of elitism or deliberate opaqueness. But pretty much any effective work of art will have layers of structure that are not consciously registered. This isn’t surprising, because it’s also how we process real life; your first impression of a person or place is synthesized subconsciously from the little details you observe during the encounter, it’s not a galaxy-brained conscious analysis.
Art communicates through experience, and subconscious pattern recognition is a big part of how we perceive and organize experience. Even when the artist goes by feel, what they are feeling is those layers; they feel them the same way we feel them, and it guides their decisions. The best artists are often pretty good at retroactively explaining or rationalizing their intuitive decisions, and will develop their own theories to augment that intuition.
I hope I’m not explaining the obvious or missing the point, I’m just trying to say that direct and indirect are not mutually exclusive, it’s a false choice. You have to make detailed decisions either way, in the execution of the work, so you might as well be intentional about them. It will only strengthen the impact of your overt communication.
I hope I’m not explaining the obvious or missing the point
Only in that we are, fundamentally, saying the same thing. I’m just emphasizing the absolute necessity of clarity if you want to actually say something, as a direct counterweight to the people who keep arguing for the primacy of symbolism and don’t seem to understand what the discussion is even about here.
You need both.
Indirect communication is absorbed subconsciously. When you look at cinematography, for example, the same scene can fall flat or grip you like a vice depending on how it’s visually presented. That’s not just magic, there are layers of structure and communication that your subconscious picks up on, which someone had to put thought into. The aim isn’t to hide the point but to reinforce it, the direct and indirect stuff work in concert.
If all the communication is indirect, that can be a hallmark of elitism or deliberate opaqueness. But pretty much any effective work of art will have layers of structure that are not consciously registered. This isn’t surprising, because it’s also how we process real life; your first impression of a person or place is synthesized subconsciously from the little details you observe during the encounter, it’s not a galaxy-brained conscious analysis.
Art communicates through experience, and subconscious pattern recognition is a big part of how we perceive and organize experience. Even when the artist goes by feel, what they are feeling is those layers; they feel them the same way we feel them, and it guides their decisions. The best artists are often pretty good at retroactively explaining or rationalizing their intuitive decisions, and will develop their own theories to augment that intuition.
I hope I’m not explaining the obvious or missing the point, I’m just trying to say that direct and indirect are not mutually exclusive, it’s a false choice. You have to make detailed decisions either way, in the execution of the work, so you might as well be intentional about them. It will only strengthen the impact of your overt communication.
Only in that we are, fundamentally, saying the same thing. I’m just emphasizing the absolute necessity of clarity if you want to actually say something, as a direct counterweight to the people who keep arguing for the primacy of symbolism and don’t seem to understand what the discussion is even about here.