Interesting that this has come up, though it’s a minor reflection of the question posed by the OP.
In Neil Gaiman’s blog, he says specifically:
So, at least from Mr. Gaiman’s point of view, there are things in his work that he didn’t notice, which could lead him to being wrong about his work. I imagine it’s much the same for other writers and artists.
Ridely Scott is so wrong about Blade Runner that I just ignore him.
As a person who has created various forms of art over the years, my feeling is that if an artist creates something that he believes says one thing, and yet the viewing public gets a completely different meaning from it, he has failed as an artist.
When I create something, I always have a specific agenda. I want my audience to feel exactly what I want them to feel. I am not one of the artists who believe his/her work is open to interpretation. Mine is not. I want you to feel what I felt when I created it. If you do not, then I have failed.
Actually I should clarify that a bit. If the majority of the viewing public does not feel what I wanted them to feel when I created it, then I have failed, assuming that my work is not just completely ahead of its time. But I don’t give myself that kind of credit. I assume anything I create is something that pretty much anyone can understand, assuming I have skillfully executed it. If it was not skillfully executed, then people will not understand what I was trying to convey, but it will not be their fault. The fault is mine.
IME some British, mainly of the socialist persuasion, have a huge chip on thir shoulders about perceived class. But most people don’t give a damn: it’s education that’s important these days.
I would like to add The Fountain by Darren Aronofsky.
I was really baffled by his explanation that the third part is about the last living person traveling in a spaceship.
To me the movie was basically the same story told from 3 different angles :
the mundane (the present), the allogoric (the past) and meta-reality (the future).
I really think he lessened the movie with his explanation.
I think the same goes for Donnie Darko.
Directors shouldn’t try to overexplain things like this director did with his Directors Cut.
I like my movies to be more spiritual in explanation then scientific.
That sounds ludicrous to me. Why in the world should I value your interpretation over what the creators of the piece have specifically stated? (Their statements make way more sense than your interpretation, for one thing.)
If you’re going to talk about Tolkien, learn to spell his name. And he wasn’t writing about Hitler. Know how I know that? Because he said so.
The writer is God Almighty when it comes to his work. “The Wall” is about whatever Roger Waters says it’s about, not some wanker’s halfwit “interpretation”. The spaceship Discovery in 2001 is not a phallic symbol; its shape is based on completely practical considerations.
When I have a successful novel or movie out, and some punk decides that he has more authority than I to say what it’s “about”, I’m going to his house and kick his ass. Then he can write his personal interpretation of the asskicking he’s received.
George Lucas. At some point, either now, or else nearer the beginning, he’s been wrong about what Star Wars is supposed to be.
I place no faith in gods and I expect them to have none in me.
Seriously the creation of art is open fully to the viewers interpretation it’s not math or science nor any non-subjective item. There are times when I read the artists take on his own work and re-evaluate my own but if I still like mine better…well tough go write a math book. 
Wow, take a chill pill, dude.
There is no need to call people wanker.
I do agree that his interpretation of the Wall is kinda… off the wall, but art is in the eye of the beholder.
If you watch a movie and interpret it in a certain way than that is your interpretation.
I don’t need the director to tell me what it is about as the work should speak for itself.
Do you also need somebody to tell you what a painting means?
Sorta like Pan’s Labyrinth. The director states emphatically in the comments that the magic in the movie is real and that he thought he made it very obvious. I’ll ascribe to his take on the movie because it makes me feel better. Before I listened to his comments, however, I was convinced that all the magic was imagined by the young girl.
And, even though the director said otherwise and it makes for a happier ending, I really, really don’t think the magic was real.
John Lennon and the Beatles always stated they didn’t realize that Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds spelled out LSD and the song was about an acid trip.
I don’t know if it’s that, or that he thinks it needs improvement because he didn’t like the way it turned out. Which is cool, it’s his movie, but it’s like if Whistler would try sneaking into the Musée d’Orsay and adding dreadlocks to the painting of his mother. Maybe he thinks it’d be better that way, but the rest of us sure wouldn’t.
…which is still massively intertwined with class and social status. I disagree with Zsofia, and do see one of the main features of the Seven Up project as being a documentation of this. What does stand out, however, was the lack of foresight in the selection of almost entirely white and male subjects.
John Ciardi once did a masterly analysis of death-wish imagery in Robert Frost’s poem “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening.” Frost angrily responded that he hadn’t put into that poem any of the crap Ciardi got out of it. Ciardi in turn noted that the author does not always intend what people get out of his works.
Barb and I recently found this out for ourselves. We wrote a novelet for a shared-universe group that was welcomed – but those linking to it claimed it was a tear-jerker, something neither of us had ever intended.
I don’t think the Heinlein instance is particularly valid – it is very easy to misjudge his motives because his viewpoint characters and the scenarios they find themselves in are so compellingly painted, and he also tends to bury things as throwaway detail (e.g., what ethnicity are Rod Baxter and Colin Campbell?). However, he’s on record in a letter contemporary to its publication that Starship Troopers was written because “evidence shows that human beings do fight; it is therefore useful and valuable to discuss why they fight.” In short, what Heinlein wanted to discuss about the ethics of war and of patriotism found a vehicle in this novel. Putting a career soldier as your viewpoint character, though, inevitably shapes the product if you’re going to be realistic in depicting characterization and character’s opinions – a career soldier is not going to be a pacifist, but a believer in the moral rightness of the just use of force – whether or not the author or the reader agree.
Turning from that to something totally different, it’s obvious that Gloria Gaynor and most of the song’s fans find very different things in “I Will Survive.” :eek:
I’m right there with you.
Del Torro’s commentary really baffled me. The film seems to go out of its way not to provide a direct answer to this question. I assumed that this ambiguity was actually the point of the entire film – we must each decide for ourselves whether or not to believe. It’s really a wonderful message, if you think about it.
And then the director has to go and spoil the whole thing by telling us the “proper” interpretation!
As a writer, of course I have my take on what I’m writing about, but a lot of times my readers pick up on things that I may have subconsciously put into the narrative. If I hear about an explanation to my work that I didn’t consider before, it generally intrigues me because I’m not always aware of how I come off to other people.
Not what the OP was asking, but I hope in the spirit of the OP, perhaps in reverse. Some years ago a Sydney schoolgirl wrote an essay about what author Tom Keneally (Schindler’s Ark) meant in a passage of the book she was studying. Her teacher marked it as incorrect.
The young girl tracked down Keneally and convinced him to come to class to explain that she was correct in her interpretation.
I agree entirely with AHunter3’s interpretation of “The Wall”. I had no idea what the “official” meaning of the album / film was, but after viewing the movie I thought the prominence of the “male gender role” theme was unmistakable. I think it’s a good interpretation of the album as well, but in the movie it’s something that I just can’t not see.