Explicit Meaning in Digital Artifacts (?)

In response to a tweet from Sian: To be explicit in image making is to be obvious (apparent). I would suggest that this method of image creation is better associated with the comercial world, not art (is comercial perceived as academic?).

So where is academic meaning found in visual culture. Do we need to abandon explicit visual meaning (as my artifact for #edcmooc), and rely on, take for instance sound to represent explicit mean making? To fall back on (clever) explicit meaning in visual culture means falling back on Graphic Design, or (better) symbolism in mannerism… But then, do we ignore 400 years of visual culture (including Picasso) ? Or as Berger suggest, do we need to get inside of an object, rearrange it, to make that object more itself, more unique!

(picasso-weeping-woman, Tate Britain, London)

Picasso’s Weeping Woman is explicit, explicit in the depiction of emotion. Is emotion and feeling academic in nature? It’s not, is it?

(Bowl of Fruit, Violin and Bottle, 1914, Tate Britain, London)

Where as Picasso’s Bowl of Fruit, Violin and Bottle attempts to understand place and physical form through the rearranging perspective and shape. I would say that this image is academic in nature. Just as scientist or phycologist would investigate, Picasso’s Bowl of Fruit, Violin and Bottle is also an investigation, an investigation into a sense of place and perception of place.

Question: Is this level of investigation too explicit? Do we need to fall back on simplistic mean making for visual culture (in general) to have visual culture recognised as academic?