Everyday Canvas

Technique vs. Meaning

Prompt: Technique vs. Meaning
"To be interested solely in technique would be a very superficial thing to me."
Andrew Wyeth
Do you think that technique is so important that it is okay for it to veil or distort the meaning? And when you write, do you make use of technique more than you favor the meaning?

------

Technique and meaning are mostly inseparable, as far as I am concerned, but if I were to choose, I would always go with meaning first. And no, it isn't usually okay to veil or distort the meaning, unless you are a great artist or a writer and you can do that veiling thing-a-magic perfectly.

A technically flawless work lacking meaning may dazzle my eyes. Yet, it may leave my soul untouched. A truly meaningful work possesses the power to kindle feelings and thought and transcends time and space to connect with people across generations. A single poem or a painting can evoke in me many interpretations and can spark reflection and internal dialogue.

I would always choose meaning above technique or any other thing, for meaning brings on new ideas, emotions, and symbolism. It encompasses an artist's or an author's intentions and even adds to them. Technique, on the other hand, can only serve as a foundation. It is a good idea to learn technique, by the way. Otherwise, how can a poet write a ballad or a sonnet? Yet, without meaning, just putting words one after the other in a form would be something like a mass burial of literature.

If there has to be a choice, therefore, I wouldn't blink to alter some aspects of a technique for the meaning of a poem or story.


,