Regardless of what the intellectual might say in his attempt to define the creations of others, interpretation is reality. What matters more? What the artist intended or how his creation is understood. If something is created it is available to be interpreted regardless of the original intent even if the intent was meant to be so straightforward as to circumvent interpretation altogether. Even if the creator of the thing has stipulated how it is to be understood, that is still just a suggestion, although coming from the source it is the most valid.

Once the thing leaves the grasp of the one who created it the thing is its own beast and discussion of it is individual perception. A choice is made by the individual how to interpret the thing and he might not be correct but he is right.

Many ideas or things that have been created have been interpreted in one way or another and inevitably someone, who believes they have the greater knowledge of the thing, will go forth to rectify the misunderstanding. Usually they go forth with condescension and the academic intellectual goes forth with the greatest abundance of it.

The meaning of a thing is directly related to the person interpreting it. That is not to say that a completely asinine interpretation is as valid as the original intent and should be attached to the thing but that to the person interpreting it, it is.

This is just another aspect of perception. If a person perceives love in a thing which the creator made to represent hate, what of it? Is the person wrong? The creator might think so but the others perception of the thing can not be denied and to him it is love incarnate.

What is most annoying is the intellectual who picks through the minutia of the thing and feels self-righteous by way of his closeness to it. These academic intellectuals have a desire to exclude any trespasser and rebuke all interpretations that do not meet with their own as if they were the creator of the thing or some kind of gate keeper. Sometime these academic intellectuals feel they have an even greater knowledge of the thing then the creator because of their intense study of it.

Few creators study what they have created as intensely as the academic intellectual studies what has been created. The creator, who is active, can not spare his time in such retrograde motion. The academic intellectuals work is retrograde motion, albeit cloaked in a dense pompousness of their own particular perception.

Anything created that could break through individual perception would be transcendent. Attempts at this usually are banal and simple like Pictograms. Real transcendence would occur if the thing was much more complex and could speak to the various beholders symmetrically. This would require a homogeneity in the onlookers that does not currently exist.