>>38
Although I clearly cant adress your reasons, or even attempt to comprehend them fully, I have to agree in some stretched out way with the concept of avatar, as if one would accept that any type of artist would be the avatar of, from my point of view, an undefinable muse of sorts, knowingly or not.
Indeed, the concept is as old as art itself.
But what I want to add to this is that where >>38 and >>39 thoughts join mine, I have no doubt others will join them on some other related level, with perhaps a certain blurring of the lines between them.
That's normal, sane, and to be expected from anyone appreciating something like pictures from a standpoint that goes beyond the pure graphical qualities of the media. Or for that matter any other "performing" arts, from TV to ballet to cinema to music or any other art that involves what others might describe as "the soul".
In the end, while there is a communion through the experience, as diversely it may be experienced, we all end up with the hard fact that we will have to interpret our experience alone, in ways that are related to our other experiences, our own and only ours.
We may share them, discuss them, agree on them, even change our opinion on them through the light of other's experiences, but in the end, as solipstic as it may sound, we are stuck in our own little skulls with them.
Trying to interpret the experience of others like >>36 did will invariably will be colored by our own experience, and to his discredit, be all too telling, sorry to say.