Symbolism, looking back at art history, and that I've adopted, isn't supposed to be completely obvious and written across the page in front of everyone's face. I paint what I feel, and it has my own meaning to me, but the viewer is supposed to interpret it themselves, incorporate their own life experiences and knowledge and make their own meaning. The only reason I put mine up is in case people were curious. Even taking something as traditional as Van Eyck's "The Arnolfini Marriage" not everyone will look at it and interpret it the same, some people see his intents (shoeless-holy, dog-prosperity, lit candle-presence of god) but even when the veiwer interprets it differently it still isn't wrong. Back then when people say that painting they were inthralled and filled with joy at the presence of god on this furtile scene, now, however, with culture and time differences, it rarely invokes emotion. Different works touch people differently.

Anyway, that is my stance on symbolism, learned from my art teacher, "Art isn't obvious". But I respect your view and you can have your own opinion on my work and anyone else's. Thanks for the feedback!

hallo! Its prettyful! but i think that all of the stuff you wrote about it in the description, should've been more clear in the painting. Because the picture is supposed to be worth more words than the description. A rule of thumb of mine. And there are always exceptions(art for arts sake and what not). But this is not an exception, because clearly it had a meaning and a background. And that should've shown more in the painting. My overall rating is 2*. :) (Its looks great! and i love the fact you used poems in the background, but art has to be more than just pretty. It has to reach the audiences emotions. Which for me it did not.)