I feel like once the song is done, you put it out there and if people want to do bizarre remixes, if people want to make strange videos, great. You know, like chaos theory applied to the music business.
I believe aphorisms are best when first read in the wild, free from the confines of any categories.
I've never found anything to be lacking in a blurry canvas. Quite the contrary: you can see many more things in it than in a sharply focused image. A landscape painted with exactness forces you to see a determined number of clearly differentiated trees, while in a blurry canvas you can perceive as many trees as you want. The painting is more open.
What I'm doing is not really based on a definite identification or a definition of what it is. It's intended to be open to interpretation.
A lot of times, politics, global issues are very black and white. There is a place for that, but it's also fantastic to have art side by side, from different viewpoints, open for interpretations.
I like people to have their own reaction and their own take on things. And I don't like to shove my - what I want them to feel or think - down their throats. I like people to say, 'What was that about?' or 'Why did that happen?' And so, any reactions are welcome.
The thing about art for me is that you can go on theorising your work forever, because it's open to interpretation.
The title of the movie is open to interpretation.
I've gotten to a point where I don't want lyrics to mean anything.
I don't think anything needs to happen in a book.
Every book is a children's book if the kid can read!
Movies work, in my opinion, on the best level when they're more enigmatic, when we don't say it's this or that and where it raises more questions than answers.
Sometimes one's very angry and preaches, but I know that to clinch a point is to close it. To leave the reader free to decide what your work means, that's the real art; it makes the work inexhaustible.
I'm big into not drawing conclusions for people. I think that's what makes for the most exciting, compelling films. I get bored when the politics of the filmmaker are the subject of the film that I see.
I am increasingly unimpressed by works of art that require a college degree to understand. I think that art should be for everyone. And people should be moved by it.
Literature is no one’s private ground, literature is common ground; let us trespass freely and fearlessly and find our own way for ourselves.
With docs, there's often a very direct communication between the filmmaker and the audience. With narrative movies, we leave it a little bit more open.
'Dhalgren' is the kind of book in which you can look for pretty much anything you want. I tried to put as much into it as I could at the time.
The stuff I like watching is the stuff that leaves you with a lot of questions when it's finished.
I try not to have too specific notions because it messes up the process later on. I leave it very open to interpretation until I start casting. Everything changes a lot when you start casting. I mean everything.
I like to leave a film open-ended, with a lingering feeling. I'll not do sequels of any of my films till I have subjects to explore.
I don't know what any of my songs are about. I don't sit down to write about anything. They're about whatever you want. I don't pick subjects. I just start.
It makes sense that whatever the topic is, it's more compelling if you can provide the audience with a range of perspectives, and you can cross disciplines. And you don't have to control what people take out of it.
