A random day

Let us begin by summarising the movie. There lived a Polish-Jewish pianist in the midst of World War II. As Germany took over Poland, Jews were hunted down, and he was no exception. The movie unfolded with various scenes in which Jews were tortured, shot, flamed, and even bombed. The pianist met several people who helped him in hiding away from the Germans and fed him. He survived the Holocaust. But his survival provoked a rippling thought inside my head.

I had the wonderful opportunity to embark on a Global Experience (GEx) study trip to Bandung and Yogyakarta, Indonesia, with a professor and fellow students from NUS College. The study trip spanned one month (half a month in each city) and comprised visits to houses and studios of prominent local artists, hikes to notable landmarks of the areas, a street art biking tour, student consultations, and student-initiated trips. I was attracted to this study trip by the theme of creative city development. I have always been fascinated by the arts and the question of how we can use the arts to address the social problems in the city. That is a question that has intrigued me for a very long time, long before the trip. Whenever I read a book or observed a painting, I have always wondered if the arts can be more than a medium for self-expression. What if the arts were used as a form of non-verbal language to discuss and dissect social problems?

In Philosophy of Arts class, I have been taught two major schools of thought regarding interpretation of arts – hypothetical intentionalism (interpretation of arts is based on what is written in the text alongside other literature-relevant evidence such as the theme of the authors’ previous works) and modest actual intentionalism (interpretation of arts is based on what the author says they want to convey, but such has to be supported by what is written in the text). It seems to me that hypothetical intentionalism and modest actual intentionalism rely on textual evidence, alongside other literature-relevant evidence, to interpret a work of art. The extent to which each evidence plays in the interpretation of a work of art varies depending on the school of thought. I just wonder whether such an approach would do justice to the author, as language may not fully convey what the author wants to express. Let me clarify my point.