You're assisting the audience to understand; you're giving them a bridge or an access. And if you don't give them that, if you keep it more abstract, it's almost more pure. It's a cooler thing.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
If the work is pure then you have to think it could be understood. If it is not understood it doesn't mean that your work is not accessible. It doesn't worry me, but, of course, I would be pleased if people liked my work.
If you start trying to communicate ideas, I think you don't allow the audience to see themselves.
I guess my experience with some stuff is kind of abstract.
I think the whole thing is: If it makes sense in your head, the audience will go along with it.
It's one of the things that looks good written down, but the reality is that you think about the pieces you're doing and try to bear in mind everyone in the audience.
When I go for a project, I wonder what underpinning a project will have that's going to give the audience some emotional access to it.
The ideal, it seems to me, is to show things happening and allow the reader to decide what they mean.
I think it's important to understand the concrete ways things work and to respect that. But some things shouldn't be explained, and you have to respect that, too.
To me, it's important to try and make an emotional connection with the audience.
I'm not against asking the audience to work, but I think what you have now is a sort of gratuitous deconstruction as a result of a fashion of literary deconstructionism indicating that there are no meanings.
No opposing quotes found.