>>8047484
Here's a fun artist fact. When an artist says shit like this
>I wanted the ambiguity of not knowing the releationship between x
It doesn't mean that they purposely left it up to interpretation to make it fun for the audience, it means they just don't fucking know but want to cover their ass to make themselves sound deep. It's the "you wouldn't understand!" when you confront a writer about an obvious plot hole (like the Institute's goal in replacing everyone with synths in Fallout 4).
7-8 times out of 10, an artist doesn't actually know what the fuck they're going for until it's done and then they make shit up about it at the end when someone asks them about it or they have to say something poignant about it. Obviously if they have a purposeful goal and concept in mind that's fleshed out, it's different, but when they're just making something without that, it boils down to "this looks cool" or "this is a neat concept, I'm going to keep going".
It's perfectly fine to make something that looks cool for the sake of looking cool, but it's dumb as fuck to try and make up what it's about after the fact. You didn't have any grand narrative in mind, but made something you liked. Just own up to it. Not everything in art has to be pretentious as fuck.
Source: Artist that used to do this shit all the fucking time. It's something drilled into you in art school so by the time you "graduate" you're huffing your own farts.
