[gumby]

But you see it was your own blindness that caused you not to realize what the hand was holding, though your subconscious expressed it. Of course you can't see this!

Yes I am being sarcastic but I actually heard this kind of comment about my then wife's work.

[roenxi]

It isn't all that silly an idea that there is information encoded into the work that the creator didn't intend to be there.

Some of the best literature works with characters rather than plot. I can easily see how an author trying to work accurately with characters based on generic memories of how someone should behave would actually leave a lot of evidence for interpretations they didn't expect.

Author's intent is important, but sometimes even the author will stand up and say their not quite sure what their characters would do in a given situation.

[mola]

As engineers we usually have a direct conscious intention for the details of our creation. Art doesn't work that way. The art piece is a piece of the artist and her surroundings. Including her conscious intentions, the naturalized social norms, her deep subconscious urges and desires, And with today's commoditized art, it includes the preferences of the collective unconscious. Literary analysis have plenty to work with. Diminishing art to the artist intentions does injustice to culture.

[jodrellblank]

"I made the blue/gold dress, and I intended it to be blue, so everyone who sees it as gold is ___" what?

What are you saying about the people who make such comments about your then wife's work? Something demeaning, I infer.