“I never create allegories. I create my own world. That world does not signify anything unusual. It just exists, it has no other meaning. I think symbol and allegory rob the artist. Creator brings up images which express, reveal life the way it is. They are not Aesop’s fables. This manner of working would be too primitive not only for the contemporary art but for art of any era. Artistic image possesses an infinity of meanings just like life carries an infinity of meanings. An image changed into a symbol cannot be analysed. When I create my images I use no symbolism of any kind. I want to create an image, not a symbol. That’s why I don’t believe in interpretations of supposed meanings of my pictures. I’m not interested in narrow political or social issues. I want to create images that would touch the viewer’s soul to some degree. That’s why in my films I tell precisely those stories and not the others.
It makes no difference to me how the public receives and interprets my films. I make films in such a way as to create certain spiritual state in the viewer. As a result he cannot remain unchanged after watching the film. But what the viewer thinks about my film’s style is unimportant to me. Viewers search for meanings as if this was some sort of a charade. I know of no work of art whose meaning would be clear to the degree demanded by some. When they listen to music, read a novel or watch a play they frequently encounter fragments they don’t understand. It’s a normal state of the relationship toward a work of art. But when they go to the cinema — they demand complete clarity, total understanding. I am against discrimination in art. Clarity is not most important. The world created by an artist is as complex as the world that surrounds him."
Andrei Tarkovsky,talking about symbols and understanding in cinema