So, here’s something that I really dislike to see:
Interviewer: So, given [ARTISTIC WORK WITH AMBIGUOUS THEME], did you actually have in your mind [DEFINITE RESOLUTION TO AMBIGUOUS THEME]?
Subject: No, I purposely made [AMBIGUOUS THEME] to [HAVE AMBIGUITY].
Interviewer: But you didn’t really [RESOLVE THE AMBIGUITY]?
Subject: [THIRTY WORDS MEANING “NO”].
Interviewer: But [ANOTHER LEADING QUESTION ABOUT RESOLUTION]?
Subject: [TWENTY WORDS MEANING “NO”].
Interviewer: But [REALLY, REALLY REACHING FOR RESOLUTION]?
Subject: [AMBIGUOUS DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONS] [IN OTHER WORDS, “NO”].
In the industry, they call this sort of conversational method “daft.” The general idea is that the interviewer possesses a simple-minded need for an answer to a question, except the question was really the feature of the subject’s work and the subject is prepared to assert that vigorously. It is one of the ways in which a fluff interview can be thoroughly fucked over. Perhaps the most salient point to emerge from such a loathsome interview is that the interviewer should be sent back to his couch with a severance check and a bag of tater tots. But, so often the interviewer is someone who has brand-name recognition in their field as a cultural arbiter, to the extent that their opinion on these things becomes categorical truth. They’re not just AN opinion, they’re a substantial part of THE opinion. So, for someone like that to inflect runaway hubris and intellectual calcification into their work? Outrageous. Horrific. Abominable. And yet, who has the ability to take down a branded name that’s well-protected by corporate media? Well, nature, eventually, one way or another. Better sooner than later. But for now? Well, Tony Soprano must be dead. (The most prominent example) And eventually some people will have to deal with the fact that only one person who actually sat down and thought about it came up with that conclusion, and that person came off like a raving lunatic. Have fun at that party!