Symbolism is a loaded term. The instinct when thinking of a symbolic piece of work; written, spoken or pictorial- is to think of something lofty and obscured. A piece of information obscured by the method of its expression, indirect and coded. It seems as though the creator has challenged their audience to decrypt something which is fundamentally unknowable (beyond sudden and inexplicable manifestation of physic abilities). However, the word ‘symbolism’ can be democratised. When a person views a symbolic artwork made by another, it does not stop being symbolic. At its conception, the artwork made physical and tangible- albeit through allegory- a thought. The thought still exists. In that transferring of ownership, the artwork becomes symbolic of that transfer and of the changing relationship between the artist and the viewer. The intention of the artist may have been to make a statement; a criticism, to elicit an emotional response. Once it has been exchanged or shared it becomes the manifestation of the artist's desire to share, incite and instigate. And if that artist chooses not to share- why? Ultimately, in sharing art of any shape, symbolism cannot be escaped: symbolism is inherent in the desire to do so.

As somewhat of an artist myself, I actually have to disagree. > "(Symbolism is) a piece of information obscured by the method of its expression, indirect and coded. It seems as though the creator has challenged their audience to decrypt something which is fundamentally unknowable" Not always true. Some symbols are well-known and universal, an example being a heart representing love, a cross representing Christianity, a floppy disk representing the "save" function in an app or program, etc. Audiences usually don't have to think too hard to decrypt these. Now, admittedly, high art is less likely to use such plebeian symbols -- but, it isn't out of the ordinary for even more complex / unknown symbolism to be figured out by the audience. I was a student teacher for a while, and I showed my 9th grade students a music video (a form of both auditory and visual art), and had them analyze the images the director used to accompany the lyrics. Prior to the video, I had them analyze the lyrics by themselves. Then I had them compare their analysis of the lyrics with and without the video, and see if the video's images changed their interpretation of the lyrics. Many of them came up with very accurate interpretations of the art. So it isn't an absolute given that symbolism is so complex that audiences can't decrypt their meaning. Now, on to your main point: > "Ultimately, in sharing art of any shape, symbolism cannot be escaped: symbolism is inherent in the desire to do so." Not all art is symbolic. I draw plenty of sketches just to unwind, flex the drawing muscles, practice, or even just to brain-spew all over the page. I don't attach a meaning or symbolism to such drawings -- and yet, they are still technically art, just at the developmental stage. Whether or not I advance them beyond that stage is irrelevant. Likewise, while some commercial art *can* be complex and symbolic, other commercial art is built upon demographics, psychology, and statistics on what sells and what doesn't. For example, McDonald's doesn't predominantly use the colors red and yellow in their advertising because there is a symbolic meaning behind the colors -- they use them because [psychological studies proved that those colors elicit more of a hunger response than any other color] (https://www.karenhaller.co.uk/blog/branding-why-red-yellow-is-used-by-the-fast-food-industry/). In other words, they chose these colors to manipulate the senses and attract more customers. There is intention behind their choice, but not symbolic intent. So no, not all art is symbolic. It can function in a number of ways outside of symbolism, or can even lack a function at all.

I think what you might be going for is that art is an abstraction. For example; language is an abstraction of our thoughts, there is some information that is lost in translation because we are taking our thoughts and transferring them into something another mind can understand. In this way art is an abstraction of thought. Some of the ideas conferred are more direct than others but at the end of the day all art is a simplified version of an idea meant to communicate something to the viewer. So I think it would be better to say that all art is abstract (in the philosophical sense) than "all art is symbolic."

Symbolism is definitely a loaded term and one that cannot relate to all art. Art can be taken in any direction, so the thought behind it doesn't necessarily imply a symbol. I don't even think I would consider allegorical art to be symbolic all of the time. There is symbolism within that form of art, but it doesn't guarantee that the piece as a whole is symbolic of anything. Symbolism is more of a device than a nature for art. You see it in multiple forms of art. Poetry uses symbolism to tie in outside connections all the time, yet a poem doesn't have to be inherently symbolic. Maybe I'm taking this too far with semantics, but symbolic cannot be used interchangeably with expressive. I would agree that all art is expressive. The relationship between the artist and the viewer, in a general sense, is formed through an act of expression which may include a symbol. I don't personally believe symbolism obscures anything. Going along with your argument, if information is obscured, a symbol still calls for an interpretation. An interpretation involves a translation error, more often than not, which completely diminishes the intended symbol the art stood for, if any in the first place. It absolutely does not mean that art, or a specific piece of art, is symbolic for the sake of it.