I'm just trying to get your definition of communications. How would you describe it generally? Do people interacting have to be in it? Or can a landscape that provides the power of awe be considered as communicating as well? Maybe communications is just in the eye of the beholder, like when people try to define the word "art"? These things seem so personal.
You pose keen questions, Alan, which have been at the very fulcrum of the art world since its birth. We could organize a 3-day symposium (at some idyllic scenic spot, of course) around these general questions and return home a bit fatter in the belly but no fatter in the head.
So to concisely offer my thoughts while staying on-topic let me hold a mirror up to you. What messages or impressions did the original set of referenced images impart on
you? To me some seemed to bear implicit messages or metaphors but most seemed to be purely exercises in visual puns. And that’s really mostly what Surrealism has ever been across media. Look at the works of Magritte, Tanguy, and Ernst, for good examples.
But now to your question regarding how works can communicate with their viewers I, again, turn the light toward you. This time with an excercise. Make a photograph that conveys a message. It doesn’t have to be a heavy message. But your image should attempt to convey some message/impression more specific than, “Ain’t this pretty?”. And most importantly
you must start with the message you want to express, not retrofit an existing image into the message. Show the image to friends and family and ask what what message they see. At the end of this exercise I’m confident that you’ll have answered most of the questions you posed above much better than anyone else could.
