This really goes to show you can read any meaning you like into art.
See it’s actually a depiction of class inequality, where the kings are represented by the fat petulant child who is withholding sustenance, wealth, and the means of production (represented by the fish) from the angry proletariat, represented by the cat.
Id like to hear Cuyp’s own interpretation, because I think most art criticism is simply people ascribing their own meaning, like I just did.
in 300 years people will wonder why owning a stuffed shark, or pink cat ear headphones, or the black/orange stripes and font of a certain websites logo, was a sign of lust to us today.
Or, most people can interpret the semiotics of “the worst guy you know” face, which will become as unreadable as the above imagine in maybe even 20 years.
This really goes to show you can read any meaning you like into art.
See it’s actually a depiction of class inequality, where the kings are represented by the fat petulant child who is withholding sustenance, wealth, and the means of production (represented by the fish) from the angry proletariat, represented by the cat.
Id like to hear Cuyp’s own interpretation, because I think most art criticism is simply people ascribing their own meaning, like I just did.
in 300 years people will wonder why owning a stuffed shark, or pink cat ear headphones, or the black/orange stripes and font of a certain websites logo, was a sign of lust to us today.
Or, most people can interpret the semiotics of “the worst guy you know” face, which will become as unreadable as the above imagine in maybe even 20 years.