Well it's an art film. The purpose of art is to evoke emotions, to inspire dialogue. Yours is one possible interpretation. Ultimately, who's to say it's not valid?

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

That's quite non-committal... of course art is supposed to evoke emotions... but that's not getting me anywhere I wasn't already... I was asking about the artist's intent

[–] IzzyJ@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You have stumbled into an art-philosophy debate that's centuries old and will never end.

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 2 points 10 months ago

No I mean specifically this artwork, this author, not art in general. Am a professional artist myself so I have some notion what this debate entails, but I was curious about the specifics of this film

[–] Jerkface@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Ambiguity is often part of the intent.