In my latest reading of It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good,
Rick Santorum criticizes the violence and illicit sex (without
consequences) in the stories that come out of the entertainment media,
and he urges conservatives to enter the media to create stories that are
more realistic. Santorum also talks about meeting Fred Rogers, whom he
says (like many say) was "the same in person as he was on TV." What I
particularly liked was Santorum's discussion of art on page 327:
"I
cannot pretend to fathom the mind of a true artist. I cannot play an
instrument; I can barely draw a circle; I don't even take good photos.
How cultural artifacts are created is a great mystery to me. And from
what I understand, it is often a mystery to the artists as well. I have
often been told that the layers of meaning in a particular artwork such
as a song or a film often are revealed to the artist himself only long
after the work is complete. Its shaping and forming influence is often
subliminal, and therefore all the more powerful in the long run."
This
may be relevant to a question in biblical studies and interpretation:
Should we just go with what the original author meant when writing a
passage, or can the passage have a life of its own, conveying meanings
that were not apparent to the original author? And, if the latter is
the case, what are the controls against eisegesis----people reading into
passages whatever they want?
But Santorum appears to acknowledge
the artist's intention even behind things that were not apparent to the
artist when he was crafting his work. What is the subliminal influence
that Santorum mentions? Is it something in the artist's sub-conscious
that comes out in the artist's creation, yet is not immediately apparent
to the artist?
Or can the artist see different ways to interpret
his work after its completion, even ways that he did not envision when
creating it? These ways may not do violence to the work, but they are
legitimate ways to make sense of the work of art that's there.