Thoughts on The Romantic Manifesto

[Newberry]

Jonathan,

Your fixation on me is not healthy. You would be better served by concentrating on your own aesthetics and work. Here, I will help you: I will not engage you again for year or two.

Good luck with your life and work.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

Your fixation on me is not healthy.

Let me guess. Your criticisms of other artists and aesthetic theories aren't "fixations," but are supremely healthy, right?

You know, at least I'm directly engaging those with whom I disagree. I question and challenge people to explain what appear to be inconsistencies in their ideas. You, on the other hand, simply bloviate about others' art and theories without actually knowing anything about them, and often while ignoring or contradicting what they've had to say about their own views.

You would be better served by concentrating on your own aesthetics and work.

What makes you think that I'm not concentrating on my own aesthetics and work while commenting on yours, Rand's and others'?

Btw, weren't you working on a book with Stephen Hicks which focuses on the dark evils of postmodern art and aesthetics? As half-baked as some of your aesthetic theories are, I think you'd be better served by concentrating all of your efforts on your own aesthetics and dealing with all of your errors and inconsistencies first.

Here, I will help you: I will not engage you again for year or two.

Well, I have mixed feelings about that. I enjoy our discussions, but I also think that the less self-important buffoonery and Objectivish zealotry about art and aesthetics the better. So if your not talking to me results in less of it, then I guess it's more of an overall positive than a negative.

Good luck with your life and work.

Thanks. Good luck to you too with your life and your art (I would have said "work" as you did, but that might be taken as me wishing you good luck with your hasty judgments, simplistic theories and double standards, and I definitely don't want to wish you luck with that).

I'll talk to you again in 2009 or 2010.

J

[Jonathan]

A couple of times I've mentioned on this thread that Rand didn't address how we might go about discovering whether or not we have accurately identified an artist's theme within one of his artworks if he isn't available to tell us what he intended. I'll add that I've never heard an Objectivist seriously address the issue and what impact it has on Rand's concept of "objective aesthetic judgment," which states that we must identify an artist's theme and then evaluate how well he has conveyed it.

As I see it, without the artist being available to tell us exactly what his intentions were (or without his having left us with a detailed written account of his intentions), we have no means of determining if he succeeded in communicating his theme, and that seems to eliminate most art from the realm of being judged objectively.

Art is notorious for being interpreted differently by different people, including those who have very similar beliefs, personal contexts, "senses of life" and intellectual abilities. If I see a painting as representing adventure, and you see it as representing fear, and we both point to the art's content to support our differing views, which of us can rightfully claim to have correctly identified the artist's theme?

Some people have "tin ears" (or various other tin organs) when it comes to certain art forms. They may be tuned in to certain pieces of art or styles but not to others. So, how would we determine if an artist has failed to communicate his meaning, or if his audience is aesthetically inept and has failed to grasp it, or neither, or both?

So, what relevance is there in trying to be "objective" according to Rand's requirements, if doing so is impossible for most of the art that exists? It seems that Rand's concept of "objective aesthetic judgment" is basically a frivolous intellectual bauble that can be displayed on very rare occasions, but has few practical applications in experiencing or judging most art.

J

Edited January 3, 2008 by Jonathan

[Rich Engle]

Two words on this thread: Mission Creep<tm>

I followed it reasonably well until the introduction of Mr. Newberry's work. I love his stuff, but really, in this conversation it could have been almost anyone that is known in O-world. I don't see the whats or whys there, bringing him in. I've read him for years, he's a jewel, but I don't see the relevance.

It's almost like, are we talking about publicity, or writing? I know that appears simple, but if you go down the thread, uh...

I'm still working the volition thing, and swaying towards Michael's view because it is compact, for one thing.

rde

Always there, just occasionally confused.

[mvir9]

Oh gosh.

Perhaps I can subtitle the painting: Pearls Before Swine, and add little piglets running around, branded with the initial "J" on their hienies?

J, if I thought like you do I wouldn't make anything.

Since I do create a lot of work and love the art I make, if people are interested at all, how I think about art is where they might find some insights into how I keep my fire alive, and perhaps relate that to their own lives.

The painting came about from how I feel in the act a creating a major work. There is a kind of ferocious energy that I channel from my perceptions of lights and colors around me, which I focus and let loose with. Once I complete a work it goes out into the world and has a life of its own.

If you took some of things you said and looked at them slightly different you might come along and see the path in the painting.

The man in channeling and generating so much energy, I thought of that has a spiritual orgasm. I wanted the face to convey something of the urgency, focus, and release--none of which comes close to being happy or sad, confident or trite.

There are studies for the painting with the man standing but I rejected those because I wanted to convey that he was grounded, solidly, like a tree's roots into the ground, and that is was a conduit between the Earth and the sky.

The light shoots out of his hyper-extended fingers, banks, and then immediately disperses in the night sky. And that is your clue that they are stars. And like I said, you can see them standing in front the painting easily.

If you were to ask me if I am happy with the painting, I would reply that I am elated with it--when I look at it, it gives me that intense feeling from which the first idea of the painting came from.

I worked on the painting over a period of 7 years, thinking, tweaking, and using all of my knowledge of art to bring it about until I was absolutely satisfied with it.

-----

I wish everyone here a happy, healthy, and successful New Year.

Michael

Michael,

That was a beautiful post -- thank you so much for sharing. Not all will appreciate such a personal, introspective explanation of one's work, but I emphatically do.

[Ellen Stuttle]

A couple of times I've mentioned on this thread that Rand didn't address how we might go about discovering whether or not we have accurately identified an artist's theme within one of his artworks if he isn't available to tell us what he intended. I'll add that I've never heard an Objectivist seriously address the issue and what impact it has on Rand's concept of "objective aesthetic judgment," which states that we must identify an artist's theme and then evaluate how well he has conveyed it.

As I see it, without the artist being available to tell us exactly what his intentions were (or without his having left us with a detailed written account of his intentions), we have no means of determining if he succeeded in communicating his theme, and that seems to eliminate most art from the realm of being judged objectively.

I agree with the "thrust" of Rand's attempting to separate aesthetic judgment from personal response to an art work. (Interestingly, her comments about separation of execution from approval or disapproval of the theme are discrepant from what she said about execution and subject in her first essay on aesthetics issues -- written before the essays in which she began to present her formal theory -- "The Goal of My Writing.")

But I think you're right that the specifics of how she says the aesthetic judgment is to be made create a requirement which is at least most of the time, and I'm inclined to say always (I'll have to consider it further), impossible to meet. One can get closer to meeting the requirement with a work such as Atlas Shrugged, in which the artist obviously (as can be told from the work) has a self-consciously chosen goal. But Atlas is unusual in the degree of its self-conscious intent, and even with Atlas the reader doesn't know in full what AR was attempting to achieve. So my provisional belief is that she's setting up a standard of "objective" judgment which would inherently require some degree of mind-reading -- and thus some degree of guessing -- to implement.

Ellen

___

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan,

Your fixation on me is not healthy. You would be better served by concentrating on your own aesthetics and work. Here, I will help you: I will not engage you again for year or two.

Good luck with your life and work.

Michael,

If you have a philosophy, you aren't alone.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I followed it reasonably well until the introduction of Mr. Newberry's work. I love his stuff, but really, in this conversation it could have been almost anyone that is known in O-world.

Yes, it could have been any artist who can tell us what his intentions were in creating works of art. In fact, if you have any serious professional artists handy, feel free to post samples of their art here, especially without providing the artists' names, the titles of their work, or any other "outside considerations," and then try to get the members here to share their views on what the images mean. After you get some substantive replies, reveal what the artists' creative intentions were, and then we'll discover what else we would have to do to determine which standards we would need to judge whether the art was objectively good or bad, or if the viewers were sensitive or lacking in ability to grasp meaning, etc.

I don't see the whats or whys there, bringing him in. I've read him for years, he's a jewel, but I don't see the relevance.

I asked about Newberry's painting because I thought it would be useful while exploring his and Rand's aesthetic theories. He was readily available, but any artist will do, including dead ones if you happen to know of any who left detailed descriptions of what they were trying to communicate with their art (Rand's requirements are that art must communicate the artist's meaning and that an objective aesthetic judgment includes identifying it).

J

Edited January 3, 2008 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

I agree with the "thrust" of Rand's attempting to separate aesthetic judgment from personal response to an art work.

Trying to make such a separation has its appeal, but is it really important to make it? Rand admits that there is no valid objective criterion available for judging music, and that we must treat our musical tastes as a subjective matter. Of course, she seems to hope that one day we'll discover a proper language of music, and then, by gosh, we'll be able to objectively demonstrate once and for all that her tastes were the right ones. But, in reality, if we currently don't need to be objective about music as a valid art form, why would we want to, and why is it important to try to be objective about the other art forms as well? What relevance is there in trying to separate aesthetic judgment from personal response when dealing with media which are, by their nature, highly subjective and emotional, and almost completely so in some cases (as even Rand admits)?

From what I've seen, those who try to be objective are generally no more successful at identifying meaning in art than those who basically subjectively feel what a work of art means to them. And those who are particularly uppity about making a distinction between aesthetic judgment and personal response usually seem to be coming from a Rand-like position of trying to bully others. It's usually an attempt to claim authority and superiority -- that their interpretations are the proper judgments.

Btw, I've never seen an Objectivist actually demonstrate that he has used "objective aesthetic judgment" as defined by Rand, since doing so would require proving that he has identified an artist's intended meaning without relying on outside considerations. I've seen a lot of Objectivists claiming to be making objective aesthetic judgment, but never according to Rand's requirements.

(Interestingly, her comments about separation of execution from approval or disapproval of the theme are discrepant from what she said about execution and subject in her first essay on aesthetics issues -- written before the essays in which she began to present her formal theory -- "The Goal of My Writing.")

But I think you're right that the specifics of how she says the aesthetic judgment is to be made create a requirement which is at least most of the time, and I'm inclined to say always (I'll have to consider it further), impossible to meet. One can get closer to meeting the requirement with a work such as Atlas Shrugged, in which the artist obviously (as can be told from the work) has a self-consciously chosen goal. But Atlas is unusual in the degree of its self-conscious intent, and even with Atlas the reader doesn't know in full what AR was attempting to achieve.

Right. I love Rand's novels, and they're definitely within the territory of art, but they're way the hell out there bordering on the land of didacticism. I think the problem is that Rand wanted to see her art as occupying the very center of the art world. That would be fine if she limited herself to understanding that her views represented her personal methods or theories of creating, but to present it as a universal theory covering all of the art forms just doesn't work.

I mentioned above that Rand admitted that there are no objective criteria for judging music as art. It's becoming more clear to me now that she really didn't demonstrate that there are objective standards for judging any art form (and I mean judging it as art -- we can point to the visual evidence in a painting and identify what a figure appears to be doing, but that doesn't mean that we have reliably identified the meaning or theme, but only elements of the art; what those elements add up to as art seems to necessarily include subjective interpretations).

So my provisional belief is that she's setting up a standard of "objective" judgment which would inherently require some degree of mind-reading -- and thus some degree of guessing -- to implement.

Yeah. The difficulty is that there are too many undefined standards and variables to even begin to demonstrate that Rand's concept of aesthetic objective judgment is possible, reliable, or even desirable. According to her, art must be intelligible. But to whom? Everyone? A few? One person other than the artist? It must communicate. To whom? It is to be judged by how well the artist has conveyed his theme. How well to whom and by what standard? Etc.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I agree with the "thrust" of Rand's attempting to separate aesthetic judgment from personal response to an art work.

Trying to make such a separation has its appeal, but is it really important to make it?

J,

This is basically just a note to let you know that I saw your post -- though I can't say as of yet that I've truly read it. ;-) Today has been a long, tiring day; I'm bleary-eyed. Tomorrow and Saturday bode more of the same. So it might be Sunday before I can concentrate on following your argument. Near as I can tell on a quick skim, it seems to me that you're arguing against Rand's ways of going about the separation. I wasn't trying to support her methods in my statement that I agree with the "thrust," only to indicate that I think the indicated separation is needful. E.g., wouldn't you agree that there are reasons for recognizing that Vermeer was a great painter whether he happens to be your cup of tea or not?

Sorry for the haste, and for possibly not understanding what you're arguing. To be continued ASAP.

E-

___

[Newberry]

Two words on this thread: Mission Creep<tm>

I followed it reasonably well until the introduction of Mr. Newberry's work. I love his stuff, but really, in this conversation it could have been almost anyone that is known in O-world. I don't see the whats or whys there, bringing him in. I've read him for years, he's a jewel, but I don't see the relevance.

It's almost like, are we talking about publicity, or writing? I know that appears simple, but if you go down the thread, uh...

I'm still working the volition thing, and swaying towards Michael's view because it is compact, for one thing.

rde

Always there, just occasionally confused.

Rich,

Thanks for your compliments.

As weird as the thread turned it wasn't totally irrelevant--both J and I were trying to concretize abstract ideas by looking at visual clues. How is one going to persuade what "volition" looks or sounds like in the visual arts and music? Even after one presents one's case it doesn't mean that it is a fact or that anyone is going to believe them--J's contrary take on my work, or any work, for example.

Even in a novel, in which characters' spell out their goals doesn't mean that the novel necessarily conveys volition. I am afraid that aesthetics requires a ton of knowledge of the subject, an extremely well informed audience, and, perhaps more importantly, a similar world view.

A key point that Rand brought up for art criticism is that basis for the criticism be pulled exclusively from the art work itself allowing for no outside considerations--that really is a great step in putting everyone at the same starting point. Sure, if is wonderful to have the artist tell you what they were thinking about concerning the work--but that only makes for fascinating stuff.

One example, in one of my paintings, among other standards, I mixed every dot and nuance of color by the criteria if that specific color felt like the sensation of chocolate in my mouth. This type of trans-sensory communication will never be possible for anyone to objectify--so the artist can tell you they did that, and it can be interesting if not totally insane, but a critic can do nothing with it. The best a critic can do is present their theme/thesis and show by pointing to the work how the visual clues fit their thesis. Then it is up to reader to follow it or not.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited January 4, 2008 by Newberry

[Rich Engle]

The compliments were genuine, Michael (Newberry). Even just out of deference for how long you have been on the scene, and how many articles you posted; that alone suffices for me--all the validation needed... ;)

I have a more meat-'n-potatoes view of volition, I suppose. I think of it as more of a "given." More of a "I mean," or "I choose to say" kind of thing. One way or the other, if you made something, it required volition. The thing of is that volition, as good as it is (doing vs. not doing at all) does not come with guarantees.

A lot of times, people have to first discover that they even have volition as a built-in. The question becomes what they, er, "volited." Hitler had excellent volition, he executed his ideas quite well. Unfortunately, the content involved, well, eew.

r

Edited January 4, 2008 by Rich Engle

[Jonathan]

This is basically just a note to let you know that I saw your post -- though I can't say as of yet that I've truly read it. ;-) Today has been a long, tiring day; I'm bleary-eyed. Tomorrow and Saturday bode more of the same. So it might be Sunday before I can concentrate on following your argument. Near as I can tell on a quick skim, it seems to me that you're arguing against Rand's ways of going about the separation. I wasn't trying to support her methods in my statement that I agree with the "thrust," only to indicate that I think the indicated separation is needful.

I understand. I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought you were supporting Rand's method of separation. I'm actually just asking questions and pondering things out loud at this point rather than taking a hard position. I guess the past few years of discussing various ideas and witnessing Objectivists' "objective" judgments of art are all adding up and demanding some revisions in my thinking.

E.g., wouldn't you agree that there are reasons for recognizing that Vermeer was a great painter whether he happens to be your cup of tea or not?

Sure, I think there are aspects of art that we can say are done well according to certain standards, even if we don't like it, but there are still problems with that. It assumes that an artist was creating according to certain standards. We might judge how well a painter has conformed to proper perspective or proportions, for example, but what if he intentionally deviated from reality in order to be more expressive? We first have to know, by means external to an artist's work, the meaning that he was trying to convey, as well as every other aspect of his intentions, including his intended style and technique.

And it gets even more difficult (if not impossible) to try to be "objective" when comparing the works of different artists. Which "objective" standards do we choose for comparing one theme or style to another, such as Vermeer's to Modigliani's?

I guess the most important question, though, is what real benefit is there in trying to eliminate subjectivity from our judgments of art when we rarely have access to the information which would allow us to be truly objective? If the purpose of art is to enrich our lives, what's the point of pursuing the utopian ideal of objectivity if all it allows us to say, on very rare occasions, is, "After a lot of research, I've rationally determined that I can now purely objectively rate this work of art as great, but it still does nothing to enhance my life; I still feel nothing when looking at it" or, conversely, "Hey, it turns out I was right about his painting, the artist did mean it the way I took it"?

Sorry for the haste, and for possibly not understanding what you're arguing.

I should apologize for my haste as well. Some of my posts lately have been written pretty quickly, so if they've been a bit clumsy or muddled, sorry for adding strain to your eyes.

J

[Jonathan]

I've been thinking a little more about the Objectivist idea of judging art objectively, using volition versus determinism as the primary means of categorizing art, and the idea, which I mentioned in post #17, that Rand was not correct in saying that determinists will show mankind as average or as fated to defeat and despair, because there is the possibility that they will show people as destined to greatness.

I was thinking that Rand's novels are good examples of works of art that could be easily interpreted as representing such a vision of determinism. Her heroes appear to be born golden and perfect. Even as children they're brilliant, practically fully formed mentally, fiercely independent, and capable of achieving very difficult things effortlessly. It's almost as if the are "chosen ones," a special breed destined to rise.

What made Francisco great and Eddie Willers mediocre or slightly above average, if not fate? My impression was that despite trying as hard as he could in life, Eddie could never have been a giant like Francisco, who appears not to have needed to work very hard in order to be magnificent at everything (which isn't to say that he doesn't often work hard, but that he appears not to need to in order to be much better than others). The scene in which he expertly drives Jim's speedboat with no prior experience comes to mind.

And isn't it an amazing coincidence that Dagny and Frisco, both heirs to massive fortunes which would have allowed them to do whatever they wanted in life, "chose" careers in their traditional family trades? Which other options did they consider before just happening to "chose" the paths that their families had been following for generations? When reading Atlas Shrugged, do you get the impression that if Dagny and Frisco had been born into wealthy families which owned movie studios or law firms they would not have become studio heads or lawyers, but would have opted instead for careers pursuing their true passions for mining and railroading? I don't get that impression.

There's a scene in the movie Dirty Dancing in which a snotty little twit (who, now that I think of it, reminds me a lot of Elijah Lineberry) seems to interpret The Fountainhead as meaning "some people count, and some people don't," and the creators of Dirty Dancing haven't been the only ones who have seen Rand's art as representing the idea of an aristocracy of those born to be superior and to regard the concerns and the lives of others as dispensable. I don't think that such responses to Rand's art are unreasonable.

Is it unfair or unjustifiable for someone to interpret Rand's art as being a form of Naturalism by her definition (art which represents deterministic points of view)?

J

[Jonathan]

As weird as the thread turned it wasn't totally irrelevant--both J and I were trying to concretize abstract ideas by looking at visual clues. How is one going to persuade what "volition" looks or sounds like in the visual arts and music? Even after one presents one's case it doesn't mean that it is a fact or that anyone is going to believe them--J's contrary take on my work, or any work, for example.

Okay, I'm confused. Above you seem to be saying that we cannot detect metaphysical value-judgments in visual art and music. If we can't persuade someone what volition looks or sounds like, and if our expositions of our arguments don't mean that we've established facts or that anyone has to believe them, then what is the basis for your disagreement with Kamhi and Torres?

Rand's view was that metaphysical value-judgments answer such questions as, "Does man have the power to choose his goals and achieve them, or is he a helpless plaything of forces beyond his control?" In other words, her view was that metaphysical value-judgments in art primarily address the question, "Does man possess volition or not?"

In your JARS and online article on detecting value judgments in painting, which is a response to Kamhi and Torres' view that metaphysical value-judgments can't reliably be discerned in art forms like visual art and music, you say that you hope to show how people can "detect metaphysical value-judgments in painting." Yet, based on what you've said above, you now seem to be saying the opposite, and switching to Kamhi and Torres' position that metaphysical value-judgments -- judgments on volition versus determinism -- can't be reliably detected.

Which position to you actually hold?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I guess the most important question, though, is what real benefit is there in trying to eliminate subjectivity from our judgments of art when we rarely have access to the information which would allow us to be truly objective? If the purpose of art is to enrich our lives, what's the point of pursuing the utopian ideal of objectivity if all it allows us to say, on very rare occasions, is, "After a lot of research, I've rationally determined that I can now purely objectively rate this work of art as great, but it still does nothing to enhance my life; I still feel nothing when looking at it" or, conversely, "Hey, it turns out I was right about his painting, the artist did mean it the way I took it"?

J,

Are you aware that you're agreeing (partly) with her thesis in "The Goal of My Writing"? A thesis which I think set the eventual course of her aesthetics toward disaster. Have you re-read that essay recently?

One of the points I disagree with here is that I don't think you have to know what an artist "meant" in order to judge an artist's competence. Not that intentions play no part in judging, but I sure don't see them playing the part AR (and you, in the quoted material) are indicating.

Man, I'm frustrated. There are three threads on which I want to be fulminating -- this one and the PARC thread and (my God! Gaak!) the TAS dollars thread. But I'll have to wait till later. Meanwhile, pretty please, do re-read "The Goal of My Writing" if you haven't refreshed your memory of that essay lately.

E-

___

[Jonathan]

Meanwhile, pretty please, do re-read "The Goal of My Writing" if you haven't refreshed your memory of that essay lately.

Okay. I'll re-read it and get back to you.

J

[Jonathan]

Okay, Ellen, I've re-read The Goal of My Writing.

You wrote,

One of the points I disagree with here is that I don't think you have to know what an artist "meant" in order to judge an artist's competence.

I think that depends on which aspects of a work of art we're judging. If we're trying to judge an artist's competence in regard to meaning, then I think we have to know his intentions (so that we can compare our interpretations to them). Would it be an objective judgment to say, "The artist was very competent at conveying the meaning that I got out his art even though it's quite possible that it wasn't his intended meaning, or that he had no intended meaning"?

I think that we can judge competence in regard to certain things without contrasting our views against the artist's intentions, but I don't think we can eliminate subjectivity from all such judgments, especially when we're judging aspects that are more complex than things such as technique. And I think that we can't eliminate the fact that error can be mistaken as style, and vice versa.

The medium of sculpture might be a good example of some of the issues that I'm thinking of here. I think we can easily and very objectively judge how realistic the proportions of a statue are, and how well-crafted a likeness of the human form it is. I think we can judge how lean, fat or muscular the figure appears to be. But, when we get to elements of expression, I think everything starts to get more subjective on us, and not just in regard to the idea of what a sculpture might ultimately mean to each of us.

For example, although I think that Peter Schipperheyn is very good at things like proportions and surface modeling, I personally think his Zarathustra figure looks very staged or posed, and I think that most of his work lacks a certain grace in that respect. Others will disagree, perhaps vehemently.

Adding to the difficulty, some artists want their art to have an artificial look. They would see it as falling within a style that they admire because, to them, it transcends natural expression. So the question is, how do I know if Schipperheyn's work is good because he's intentionally creating in a style which is more staged or arranged than naturally expressive, or if his work is not so good because he is incapable of capturing beautiful lifelike gestures at a level that I would judge to be good? I think I'd need to know something about his intentions before judging his competence regarding the style of his figures' poses.

Not that intentions play no part in judging, but I sure don't see them playing the part AR (and you, in the quoted material) are indicating.

I don't accept Rand's idea that art must have a goal or precise intended meaning, or that if an artist happens to have one, that it must be successfully communicated in his art. Obviously some forms of art can communicate as Rand demands, but I disagree that it therefore follows that they must do so. I don't think that listeners or viewers need to concern themselves with an artist's intentions in order for art to be meaningful to them.

However, if we are to judge a work of art according to Rand's notion of "objective esthetic judgment" and her view that art must communicate, then I think we have to discover what the artist's intentions were by some means outside of his art, because the only way to judge if his meaning has been communicated would be to compare our interpretations to his statement of his intended meaning. And, beyond Rand's views, I think that any attempt to objectively judge an artist's competence in regard to his art as a sum or whole implies that we are trying to judge how well he has communicated.

So, have I addressed your concerns?

J

[C. Jordan]

Happy New Year Chrysaor,

I enjoyed by your unexpected views on my two works. They work for me.

Most welcome. I liked the pictures.

Regarding Rand's view, you said:

Happy New Year Chrysaor,

About the cold sore and other realistic things...could you perhaps see Rand's point of view if you looked at the cold sore, not as something realistically, but as a symbol...Do you think Romantics simply give a lot more weight to symbolism? Where a realist might simply brush it aside as insignificant because they wouldn't give two moments of thought in real life?

Point accepted. I could see that as an interpretation of a hypothetical painting. And yes, some people see symbolism into everything. The problem is (and this would be another thread) that symbolism has an element of subjectivity. One can interpret the same symbol (fire, ocean, wind, mountain) in many different ways.

And you asked my writer's goals?

Presently: a 3-part epic over a pair of identical twin brothers and their world (which is Asia of ±200 years hence).

For later: a journey inspired by African history, but in this case not directly based on it.

Tot ziens.

Chrys