Analysis/interpretation of Mirrorcle World PV

[ImpactBreaker]

Originally Posted by jon_the_d

story for you:

another singer releases a song with fairly deep and profound lyrics, and the artist's message and the songs meaning puzzled the fans, so they debated at great length on the official forum. There was much discussion and various people were convinced that their interpetation was THE right one. Eventually, the artist posted (as it was the official forum he visited it often and posted occasionally, and was particularly interested to see what his fans thought of his new songs). He said, "right, sorry, I can't lurk here any longer, I've got to leap in and tell you how completely WRONG you are, what this song is about is this:..."

The artist is the only person who truly knows the message and meaning, as it is their creation, their idea. and any other interpretations are wrong.

It's their creation and their idea, but once they expose it to public, they can't force people to see it their way. That's one of the things about art. You saying that, almost sounds as if ayu hates a certain song she made, everybody will have to hate it, because she is the creator and she hates it, and the only reaction people can have to it is hate, not love, which is nonsense (in fact she doesn't like Endless sorrow, while many of her fans do). Who knows if Leonardo made Monalisa in order to have the dubious smile? Maybe he painted her just to paaint some weird woman without caring about the smile , but then other people noticed it and nowadays the painting is appreaciated because of that dubious smile. What if he was revived and said "gosh, I didn't really even attempt to do a dubious smile in this painting". Would the dubious smile be taken away? That's the great thing about art. It's somebody's creation? yes, but it can be appreaciated in different ways by different people, and as long as it is the artists call to have its work exposed to public, the public can react to that piece of work the way they want, not the way the artist wants. If the artist doesn't put any bounds or any clear direction as to where they want their work to follow, they should expect anything from it. That's ayu cases. Her lyrics are vague and unclear, which leaves the person reading them to take their own conclusions. ayu probably knows what she wanted to mean, but since she doesn't tell us, we are left to wonder that by ourselves.

[jon_the_d]

Originally Posted by ImpactBreaker

It's their creation and their idea, but once they expose it to public, they can't force people to see it their way. That's one of the things about art. You saying that, almost sounds as if ayu hates a certain song she made, everybody will have to hate it, because she is the creator and she hates it, and the only reaction people can have to it is hate, not love, which is nonsense (in fact she doesn't like Endless sorrow, while many of her fans do). Who knows if Leonardo made Monalisa in order to have the dubious smile? Maybe he painted her just to paaint some weird woman without caring about the smile , but then other people noticed it and nowadays the painting is appreaciated because of that dubious smile. What if he was revived and said "gosh, I didn't really even attempt to do a dubious smile in this painting". Would the dubious smile be taken away? That's the great thing about art. It's somebody's creation? yes, but it can be appreaciated in different ways by different people, and as long as it is the artists call to have its work exposed to public, the public can react to that piece of work the way they want, not the way the artist wants.

er...no.

whether people like or dislike a piece of work and whether the artist likes or dislikes the same piece of work has got NOTHING to do with the message the artist intended to get across.

their intended message, if they had one, is irrefutable. that is what the song, or poem, or novel, or painting was supposed to convey, the very purpose of its creation. if other people interpret it a different way, then it is a failure, either on the part of the artist to convey their message, or the part of the audience on failing to perceive the true message.

people might find other meanings, but just because they can be found, doesn;t mean they are right. indeed, if you found one of these "alternative" meanings, you have ultimately missed the artist's message and therefore not grasped the meaning of the piece.

[ImpactBreaker]

Originally Posted by jon_the_d

their intended message, if they had one, is irrefutable. that is what the song, or poem, or novel, or painting was supposed to convey, the very purpose of its creation. if other people interpret it a different way, then it is a failure, either on the part of the artist to convey their message, or the part of the audience on failing to perceive the true message.

well, there's a interesting brazillian book called "Dom Casmurro". This book taslks about a guy who gets in love with a girl who has "dissimulative eyes" called Capitu. Making the story short, the whole book focus on her dissimulative eyes, trying to imply she wasn't exactly a very trustable person. In a part of the book, he starts to speculate that she's probably cheating him with one of his best friends. Lost in speculations, he ends up assuming she truly cheated him after she gets pregnant and the child "resembles" a bit of his friend, but she promptly denies it. They break the relationship and their life turn into misery, but they never come back again. End of the book. The great mistery of the book is: did Capitu truly cheat on him or not? There's no REAL evidence that makes you assume if she did or not, even though the book tries to work on the disimulative aspect of Capitu's personality (the book is old, and no blood or paternity tests were available at that time). Maybe her dissimulated eyes and the fact their son looked a little like the other guy + a few other things that happen, make it likely that she cheated? But hey, what if everything was just things created on his mind because of his jealousy and she truly didn't? The book leaves you with that question. Is it wrong to think she did? Is it wrong to think she didn't? Is it wrong to be undecided? Obviously not. The writer of the book never left any notes giving any answer. Maybe he had an opinion about it, but since he didn't make it public, people are left to wonder what they want, and there's no failure about it. Maybe if he had tied an answer to it, the book would have lost its value as an artistic piece. Whoever read the book can have the feeling they want, and that's where art truly exceeds the simple concept of only being the "creation of an artist". If there's just the artist and the art, but nobody to appreciate it, the art does not exist.

Something simillar happensd in Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express. Who was the murderer after all? Even though there's such a thing as an alternate ending telling somebody was the real murder, it is nothing but an example, and the book leaves you free to decide who actually did the murder. There's no failure in the book, in the person who wrote it or those reading it.