>finally watch twin peaks. >can see every reference to it in persona 4 and numerous japanese games

Anon, just read the thread, its already been described.
But seriously, its the end of the prologue of the first episode.

I'm quite literally neither of those things, actually, but thank you for proving further how poor your judgement is.

Crybaby

>So you're telling me if you're in a museum looking at a painting with no plaque next to it, you are unable to feel positively or negatively about it until someone tells you what the painting represents?
Genuinely, yes. I hate modern and interpretive art, I can appreciate something like an old sculpture where you can see the beauty of the work and the skill that went into making it. Stuff like Pollock always pissed me off, it's just a bunch of splashes of paint, if it was meant to mean something that he could've fricking written it down.
>That's why Lynch isn't stating it by explaining. Things can exist that aren't explained.
That doesn't make his intent ephemeral then, it just hides it - and why would he hide it?
>our emotions are not entirely based in rationality and your dogmatic belief that everything you do is governed by reason belies a lack of self-reflection.
I'm not saying my emotions or my thoughts are rational at all, I'm saying that whatever thoughts or mental process he went through when he made his stuff is unknowable to me without him stating what they are. If Dale Cooper likes black coffee so much because Lynch likes black coffee so much, then why doesn't Lynch just state that? Why leave it a mystery?

>Dreams dont make sense but they can cause a lasting emotional feeling upon experiencing them
I can't relate, and I can't comprehend the rest of your post.

>The symbolism and meaning is cryptic and personal.
Ok but then you make it impossible to understand, and it doesn't need to be that way. He can share what it means and eradicate the cryptic aspect and make the personal public.
>Hes also big into transcendentalism, the idea that were just all individual points of perspective connected in a greater whole.
Oh so he's literally insane then? Actually crazy person spiritualism jack off crystal type shit?
>You can break down eraserhead as "a terrified parent not ready to grow up and be a father" but that simple plot synopsis doesnt give you more insight to the lady in the radiator, or the man at the center of the world, or manmade chickens, because that is all the milleu to force you out of the traditional comfort zone to enjoy a narrative.
I'm so confused by this. You mean those random bits not tied to the main story of Eraserhead were intended to disturb the viewer so they could, somehow, enjoy the narrative more? I don't understand.

stop talking to him man. i swear. you must be same gayging.
youve made the same point over and over, he doesnt want to make his own interpretation. despite lynch saying its all there anyhow. the mystery of lauras death was solved. everything else is the show expressing the feelings of the people involved. he doesnt need to know anything. case is closed.

It's not about imposing your own life onto the work, it's about deriving meaning from the text itself.
For example, the square you draw has more depth than just being a geometric shape:
It must be drawn on a medium with a tool.
It may be perfect or imperfect to varying degrees.
It must exist within physical space.
You would be taking these contextual clues to point towards a meaning that exists WITHIN the work.
If you were to draw the square on the walls of a prison, for example, it would take a very different meaning than if Plato were to draw a square as a representative of the perfect Form of the square.
That's what Lynch is intending for the audience to do when they watch. You're meant to examine not just the content but the context in which it is presented to you.
Marshall McLuhan has an incredibly famous phrase that describes this exactly: "The medium is the message."

>I don't want to engage with interpretation in any way whatsoever.
>WTF, why won't Lynch explain his shit I don't get it!!!
You sound like you'd be best off getting plot synopses off Wikipedia then if you only ever care to interface with these things on a superficial level.

Look up encoding and decoding. Interpretation exists in all facets of communication.
You likely just lack the tools to effectively decode film.

All communication is predicated on encoding, and no I don't think Lynch is a c**t for refusing to explain his works.
If he were to do so then people watching his stuff, like you, would not feel challenged to derive meaning independently. They would simply look up what it's supposed to mean and feel contented that they're getting the 'definitive' experience.

Like

[...]
I don't know how to say this in a way that won't sound horribly mean, so please know that I genuinely am not trying to speak down to you when I say this: you are unlike other people and for whatever reason cannot perceive things the way they do. Other people like the puzzles. The puzzles are the point. They make other people (not you) feel deeply, and they add such intense emotions to the more standard parts of the show that you cannot help but feel deeply for the characters when you see their feelings abstractly represented in a way that speaks to your subconscious, not your rational mind. For whatever reason, this mode of interpersonal communication is cut off to you, and you perceive it as a cypher to which nobody has the key but David Lynch. But that's not the case. The truth is, everyone else DOES have the key, but when they hand it to you and you open the box yourself it's empty. For everyone else the box is full of meaning and truth, and for you it is just a box. I'm sorry that this is the case. But if the box were full for you, and everything were explained flat out, it would be empty for the rest of us.

So no, David Lynch is not an butthole for making art you don't understand. Nobody is. I don't think you're an butthole for not understanding. But it's a personal issue, something different in you that the rest of us have. I'm sorry. I hope this doesn't sound rude.

said, you're just not the audience for the kinds of works Lynch puts out if you don't enjoy the interpretive component of film. That's fine, most movies and TV shows don't require it, but it's arguably the singular most important element for him.
You're not necessarily wrong for not enjoying that, but that doesn't mean this entire mode of understanding media is invalid because you can't, or won't, engage with it.

The Japs fricking adore Twin Peaks, Human Entertainment even put out a game over there that was basically a rip off of it called Mizzurna Falls.

I've put a lot of hours into this game, and it is such a brutal mess of a game. It practically impossible to get the good ending without a guide because as soon as the game starts you have to rush to like 3 or 4 different areas around the map immediately or you're screwed and the game won't even tell you that you've messed up.

Alright, so you simply dislike the idea of interpreting media period? There's really nothing that can be done for you in that case.
You've also couched this in some strange misanthropic angle despite simultaneously drawing parallels between Lynch and God.
I used to think that there needed to be some singular truth to be uncovered, and it made me hate art for a long time.
Eventually I got over that notion, but I want to caution you against thinking that you've somehow outsmarted everyone with this line of thinking.
I got trapped by my own ego for a while, and it led me to having very similar opinions as you do now.

>Don't you want to know what he knows, what it's really about?
I understand where you're coming from, but me personally no. I enjoy the mysticism and the process of trying to come up with explanations that might or might not match the artists vision. It's more fun than not being able to do that because the artist makes the meaning obviously clear be it through words, or the art itself.

>The fun is in solving the mystery, not being confused.
The fun is in trying to, and potentially solving the mystery. That process is the fun. If the author gives away the answer, he takes away the fun and you don't get to play.

Yes, but you might know the lines arouse out of anger, but you would not know why he was angry in the first place. Even if everything was done intentionally, and even if you could read Lynch's mind and know with full certainty the thought process behind all of his ideas, you would still not know why those ideas arose at all. So it's really a meaningless endeavor.

I don't really know how to explain it any better then. To each their own I guess.

There is a very big difference between an inability to properly convey meaning and intent versus a deliberate choice not to. I could understand if Lynch was bad at explaining himself, but the reality is that he's a smug butthole who patently refuses to even attempt it in the first place.

It's trying to elicit emotions in you. The point is to get you to feel something. Feelings are best conveyed not through concrete explanations, but through an emotive medium, like art. If my dad died and I wanted you to know I was sad about that, I would just tell you "my dad died and that made me sad." But if I wanted you to feel how I felt when my dad died, I'd make art about it.
>But Lynch doesn't say what emotions he wants me to feel!
Exactly. Lynch, and artists like him, want us simply to feel, not to intellectualize our emotions constantly. Instead of watching my movie and saying "now I understand how that anon felt when his dad died. Gee, he must have loved his dad a whole lot", you are meant to feel the grief and anguish and pain that I have communicated on whatever level it resonates on, and that feels cathartic to you. That's the point.

[...]
Also do what this anon says.

>If my dad died and I wanted you to know I was sad about that, I would just tell you "my dad died and that made me sad." But if I wanted you to feel how I felt when my dad died, I'd make art about it.
You could do both of these though.
>Instead of watching my movie and saying "now I understand how that anon felt when his dad died. Gee, he must have loved his dad a whole lot", you are meant to feel the grief and anguish and pain that I have communicated on whatever level it resonates on, and that feels cathartic to you. That's the point.
I don't understand. Without knowing that you are intending to convey the anguish and grief you felt in your work, I could come away with it completely missing the point. Maybe I'd think it was a comedy and end up laughing my ass off. Sure, that's a "valid interpretation" or whatever the frick is the mentality behind this interpretative art shit, but then I totally missed the point and came away with the wrong perspective.

>Maybe you are just using the wrong key to decipher the message.
That's pretty much exactly what my problem is, expect the guy holding the correct key won't fricking give it to me.
>Lynch wants you to have the same fun that people who do Cryptography for fun: he wants you to work for that message.
it's neither an inability to convey the message, nor it's a refusal to convey it, it's a challenge, inviting you to do so.
Ok, but here's the thing: I don't want to work for that message, I just want to be told it, because working for it is frustrating and fricking annoying, and even if I somehow found the correct key, I wouldn't know it because he refuses to share what the meaning is. Again, it's like a jigsaw puzzle that's just a random assortment of colors, even if you solve it you couldn't tell.

I'm gonna state this: that entire process sounds absolutely fricking agonizing and totally unnecessary when the author could just explicitly state their meaning. I cannot imagine digesting any form of media a second time, nothing is even remotely that interesting or entertaining, nor do I think anything could ever possibly have that much meaning. Life is simple and most "complexity' is just people making shit up by treating it as needlessly complex. Humans think too highly and deeply of themselves, we really aren't that interesting or difficult to understand except when we choose to be so. If someone was so hard to comprehend their writings need to be TAUGHT...why even bother?

>The thing is: They can't.
As we established, communication is a complex process.
Oh frick off, I'm not even reading past this and the idea that you teach this shit is absurd. There is absolutely nothing going on in your brain or the brains of anyone else who has ever lived that is even slightly complex or difficult to put into words.
>Pic related is... reasonable example, I think.
No it isn't, Mary and the angels are sad at Jesus's death. That's it.
>Another problem is that the author isn't necessarily conscious of what he is doing. Again, speaking from experience here: consciousness is like 5% of your brains activity, and when you create, you often have no clue yourself what are you cooking
You aren't fricking unconscious, you know what you are doing.

I will never create art if this is the type of insufferable self important human garbage that will pay attention to it. The idea of someone trying to tell me MY square is anything but a square inspires murderous rage. Frick your prostitute mother, it is a square forever and you do not have even the tiniest right to think otherwise.

Frick you my box has stuff in it, shown to be true by the fact that when I talk with others about Twin Peaks their boxes are full in the same way. Clearly something was communicated. Not my fault you're broken.

You don't have Lynch's box dumbass.

>If Lynch has a box and everyone who watches his movies and shows sees the same thing in their boxes except you, Lynch communicated his message.
Wait, they see the same thing? Nobody said that. How do you know everyone else has the same box that Lynch had?

>There is absolutely nothing going on in your brain or the brains of anyone else who has ever lived that is even slightly complex or difficult to put into words.
We literally just went over how language is a FUNDAMENTALLY imperfect tool of communication, did you forget that?

>No it isn't, Mary and the angels are sad at Jesus's death. That's it.
If you think "that is it", there is part of your brain that isn't working correctly. God knows I don't want to insult you, I've been trying to be as non-confrontational as possible, but I cannot avoid saying this. If you think the statement "Mary and Angels are sad at Jesus's death" is in any way even remotely equivalent to the experience of that image... there is something neurologically not right about you.

>You aren't fricking unconscious, you know what you are doing.
You... don't know absolutely anything about neurology, do you? No: consciousness is barely a fricking surface of what is going on in our brains. Take a look into things like neurological confabulation, or at least, go and read the book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks, just as the most rudimentary primer into the utter insanity that is human mind.

>I will never create art if this is the type of insufferable self important human garbage that will pay attention to it
I think we won't be missing out on much, considering all we've seen so far is seething and constant accusations that someone is trying to make you look bad.

I wasn't joking when I said your problem is fundamentally, an insecurity. Which is never a good place from which to create art.

>This is like the 9th time I've done this in a Lynch thread and the 9th time you homosexuals just resort to insulting me and acting passive aggressive when I eventually lose my cool due to frustration. I just want a fricking answer. That is all that I want.
You have been given the answer so many fricking times but I will say it once more:
The answer is that other people are able to perceive something you are not. Children can hear higher frequencies than you, and other people can understand surrealism. That is the answer. No matter how mad this makes you, that is the answer. No matter how unsatisfying you find this, that is the answer. No matter how much you think everyone else but you is coping, that is the answer. Lynch is not hiding things. He is showing things in a way you do not perceive. That is the answer, and that is the only answer. The fact that you still do not understand this after 9 threads is worrisome.
Have a nice day.

No, Lynch didn't TRY, he DID. There is no meeting halfway, he already did it. He just won't explain it.
>I literally just said it cannot be done.
Again, not even trying. I'm not saying it will be perfect or even adequate, but at least fricking try.
>Because those neurological issues demonstrate how fundamentally imperfect our consciousness is.
Someone hallucinating has absolutely zero relation to someone making something and refusing to explain it.
>You claimed that there can't be anything going on in our brains when we create that we would not be conscious off. I'm pointing out that you are not aware of 90% of what is going on around you, or in your head right now, at all. Half of the shit you see in front of you isn't there, it's been supplemented by your brain and you do not have the faintest clue about that.
I have no idea what the frick you are trying to say here. You are always aware of 100% of everything you can perceive unless you are actually insane and seeing shit. If you seriously think half of whatever in front of you isn't real, run directly at a wall and see what percentage of it you slam into. What you are describing is actual insanity.
>It just means that reconstructing their way of seeing things requires more effort. And that leads us back to the problem: your fear or unwillingness to extend that effort.
It's not, I can't, I CANNOT, fundamentally CANNOT decipher what Lynch meant without insight into his mind. Nobody can. You could come up with your own interpretation, and it could align with his intent 100% exactly, but without his admittance you CANNOT know that.

You might be the biggest fricking midwit ever.

It doesn't matter what Lynch meant. It doesn't matter what ANY artist MEANT. All that matters is how a work makes you feel, and Lynch understands this better than most.

I couldn't care less if my interpretation is 100% correct or 1% correct.

>How does that not fricking bother you? How does being wrong about it not torment you?
I've reached my own conclusion about the show.

Let me put this to you another way, are you tormented by not knowing the meaning of life? I mean, god hasn't shown up and explained it to you, right? You've got to work that shit out yourself, you fricking moron.

>because I don't believe life was created by an intelligent being
But you don't know for certain that I didn't make you last thursday and give you a bunch of fake ass memories just for fun.

Ultimately, you're just a spoilt child who cannot handle being told "no".

art is like a rorschack test, a point you smugly ignored earlier(projection at its finest, folks), revealing who you are. in this test, we have all have been revealed that you are a one dimensional moron.

hey, what this guy said.

Go read an ikea instruction manual, that seems to be more your speed

>No, Lynch didn't TRY, he DID. There is no meeting halfway, he already did it.
Actually, as we just established the imperfection of our means of communication: there is no OTHER way than to meet half way. Every time we engage with someone in communication, it's a process of two people working together to (hopefully) not completely miss each other. The more complex the message is, the more work both need to put in.

>Again, not even trying.
Not intending to do something that is by definition futile.

>Someone hallucinating has absolutely zero relation to someone making something and refusing to explain it.
Who said anything about hallucination? I told you to look up the book. Actually read it. I also told you to look into concepts like confabulation. It's not a hallucination, it's something you are doing, right fricking now.

>You are always aware of 100% of everything you can perceive unless you are actually insane and seeing shit.
False, and the fact that you believe this is genuinely compounding my worries about your mental well being. That is some surreal level of actual detachment you have, you are starting to remind me of someone I've met.

Have you ever heard of schizoid personality disorder?

>It's not, I can't, I CANNOT, fundamentally CANNOT decipher what Lynch meant without insight into his mind.
To use your own words: you could try.

>Except Lynch is not putting in an iota of work at explaining it, which makes it impossible to solve.
No, because he is using a more complex and rich tool of communication. We established that statements are fundamentally insufficient. His message is his work - that is the best way he can express himself. It falls flat on you, but it does not fall flat on many other people.

>You are talking out of your ass and totally wrong.
I have already given you a lot of clues into this subject. Scientific insight into the subject, ones that are accessible to laymen.
You are literally saying that every single ounce of our massive, extensive scientific research into the nature of human mind, is all wrong.
And you know this because... why again?

What makes you confident that you know better than the entire disciplines of neuroscience? Where does that confidence come from?

>I'm sick and tired of your homosexualry.
Yeah, I'm tired of this as well. God knows I tried.

So let me put it in a way more suitable to this board:
You are a literally mentally deficient child with a strange mixture of narcissistic and schizoid personality disorder, which is quite a fascinating mixture. Not only are you entirely deficient to a point where you do not understand the very concept of human emotion: but you are genuinely deluded into thinking that everyone else in the universe is wrong. Despite ever step of your life clearly signaling to you that you are not mentally capable to be trusted with spare change, you somehow concluded that you are the smartest person in the universe. This isn't dunning kruger, this is multiple layers of certified psychopathology. You are a fricking time-bomb of a shitstorm and I feed deep and profound pity for anyone unfortunate enough to be the one taking care of you.

But hey, I have one good news for you. Your pathological fear of your own deficiency, which is the source of your frustration, and your self-delusions:
That one is 100% spot on. That is the only part of your brain and personality that works as intended. You should listen to that more: it's telling you that you are a piece of trash because there is one part of you that knows what is going on. Unfortunately it is also the one you try to silence.

This was fun, for a good while though, so I will say thank you for the opportunity to train a little on you. But the tragedy of... you being you unfortunately, sours the experience somewhat.

I wish you best of luck, you are absolutely going to need it, and more importantly I wish those close to you a sweet release from your torment. May god have mercy on your soul, you fascinating trainwreck of a human being.

>It cracks me up that there are like four variations of this post in this thread.
Yeah. As I said: it's actually quite a fun exercise to deal with him, but it does also build frustration.

But I am quite serious when I say that poor sod is not healthy. I have met someone very similar to him and it kinda haunts me even many years later - someone somewhere will have very hard time with him.

But Twin Peaks DOES give you plenty of context. "What is this scene getting at emotionally? Why is it trying to make me feel sad and on edge?" It is trying to make you understand the emotional state of a teenage girl who was brutally raped and murdered and the feelings of those who loved her in response to the crime. As

>There is a very big difference between an inability to properly convey meaning and intent versus a deliberate choice not to.
Why do you assume that the problem isn't just on your side. Maybe you are just using the wrong key to decipher the message. Lynch wants you to have the same fun that people who do Cryptography for fun: he wants you to work for that message.
it's neither an inability to convey the message, nor it's a refusal to convey it, it's a challenge, inviting you to do so.

The main problem is that people tend to rely on the same old dusty keys, and when those don't work, they feel like they have been tricked. And sometimes, it is a trick - there are works that pretend to be a cypher, but in reality they are just random nonsense. Lynch at times ballances on the edge of that approach, but I don't think he falls into it too often. His works are more coherent than people give them credit.

says, you are given context for these scenes, you not being unable to fully parse what everything means isn't necessarily a bad thing. You can't put all of those emotions into words, but you can get closer to them with art.

Why does it need to be encoded? Wouldn't you agree that Lynch smugly refusing to decode his own work makes him a c**t?
[...]
Do you understand where I'm coming from at least? Don't you want to know what he knows, what it's really about?

I don't know how to say this in a way that won't sound horribly mean, so please know that I genuinely am not trying to speak down to you when I say this: you are unlike other people and for whatever reason cannot perceive things the way they do. Other people like the puzzles. The puzzles are the point. They make other people (not you) feel deeply, and they add such intense emotions to the more standard parts of the show that you cannot help but feel deeply for the characters when you see their feelings abstractly represented in a way that speaks to your subconscious, not your rational mind. For whatever reason, this mode of interpersonal communication is cut off to you, and you perceive it as a cypher to which nobody has the key but David Lynch. But that's not the case. The truth is, everyone else DOES have the key, but when they hand it to you and you open the box yourself it's empty. For everyone else the box is full of meaning and truth, and for you it is just a box. I'm sorry that this is the case. But if the box were full for you, and everything were explained flat out, it would be empty for the rest of us.

So no, David Lynch is not an butthole for making art you don't understand. Nobody is. I don't think you're an butthole for not understanding. But it's a personal issue, something different in you that the rest of us have. I'm sorry. I hope this doesn't sound rude.

Frick you my box has stuff in it, shown to be true by the fact that when I talk with others about Twin Peaks their boxes are full in the same way. Clearly something was communicated. Not my fault you're broken.

Oh yeah, I'm not trying to imply that's the entire point of The Return, that's just what struck me most clearly when I first watched it.

>that embarrassing 4 hour "definitive" video essay
I really hate that people take that channel seriously. Like it just disappoints me so fully. I actually agree with a few things they have to say. They touch on some Twin Peaks stuff that rings true to my ear, they stand up for movies like BvS and Prometheus that I don't love but I do regard as wildly overhated, they clearly give some amount of fricks about Silent Hill like I do. They are just also moronic. Like textbook autism failing to understand feelings, needs some extra consideration for their disability shit.

NTA and there's a lot of themes and ideas, but for me the bigger thing is that "No man can stand in the same river twice for it is not the same river and he is not the same man"