What is it...

[abu nuwas]

"But you cannot use muddled language to produce an exegesis for another
muddle. At some point, you must use speech of the most plain sort.
Otherwise, you might as well leave the original muddle to speak for itself."

Of course you can (or, at least, I can). And 'muddle' DOES make you think
(if you're inclined to). Of course, the thinking that ambiguity necessarily
encourages can't be controlled that well. So, sure, I can make you think;
I just can't predict very well what you'll be thinking about. Pictures of
kittens are easier than Mark Rothko's painting: "Orange and Brown". Oh,
wait... judging from your Warhol remark, I guess that Rothko* would make
your thoughts easier to predict.

And, for all you topic police out there, this directly (and in speech of the
most plain sort, by the way) illustrates the problem with infinitely
muddled concepts like "beauty".

* Not that I'm a big Rothko fan; I like my muddles shaken, not stirred.

Would you try the muddled system of explaining, when dealing with a life or death situation, say, like how the nuclear button works? No. But in some strange way it is good for explaining other things.

As for the bloody Warhol thing, no, I like Warhol; I did not need to be told that this exhibition would make me see him as I had never done before, which was another part of the advertising blurb. Sorry that my muddled explanation did not make this clear. It consisted of a handful of 'works' which the great man must have desperately hoped would never see the light of day, scribbles, but mainly bank upon bank of monitors, with people sitting reverently in front of them, while Warhol, and some of his buddies mumbled, and then laughed hysterically. While they were lounging around in The Factory, they can never have dreamed that they would be taken so seriously by so many, in such quiet. It was not a case of the Emperor's new clothes: it was more a case of the Emperor's 40-year old underpants. But I fear we shall not agree.