It would not be an exaggeration to state that symbolism is one of the core elements of art. As such, any creator targets to communicate some idea to the public. Sometimes, this challenging task cannot be completed with the use of straightforward messages and signs. Therefore, creators choose to incorporate symbols into their works providing the viewers with a precious chance to see into their motives. While some symbols are evident and cliché-formatted, others require a certain effort to be interpreted properly. In any circumstances, symbolism plays an important role in shaping the semantic constituent of a work of art. Both photography and painting would be deprived of their charming sensuality unless the creators employed symbols. In order to prove this thesis, it is proposed to compare to works of art: the photograph “Parade, Hoboken” made by Robert Frank and James Ensor’s painting “Death and the Masks.”

On the face of it, the selected works have little in common. Moreover, there is more than half a century gap between the time of their creation. In the meantime, a deeper analysis reveals that they translate one and the same idea. To begin with, it might be propose to examine Ensor’s “Death and the Masks.” At first sight, it might appear that the key symbol in this painting is the one of the Death. However, a closer look allows realizing that the symbols of masks are much more meaningful. As such, the painter shows the impersonality that the social class imposes on its representatives. The bourgeoisie-like cover prevents the viewers from distinguishing the personalities that these masks conceal. Frank’s “Parade, Hoboken” translates a similar idea. Thus the two people watching the parade are almost completely covered by the American flag fluttering above their windows. The viewers are, therefore, deprived of a chance to see the emotions and feelings these people experience looking at the parade scene. As such, it might be suggested that Frank’s flag performs the function of Ensor’s mask – both represent an artificial cover that conceals the personality. It might be likewise assumed that the symbols illustrate the ridiculousness of the widespread prejudices that people create on the basis of one’s class or national identity. Whatever these symbols stand for they help to transform simple plots into meaningful and contradictive works of art.

In this frame, it might be likewise proposed to compare two curious pieces, i.e. the “Broken Column” by Frida Kahlo and one of the photographs from Cindy Sherman’s “Comme de Garcons” series – “Untitled #229.” On the face of it, the viewer sees that both pieces depict a woman in an unusual and unexpected manner – the women are completely deprived of the attractive implications that female portraits normally involve. In order to understand the creators’ messages, it is essential to interpret their symbols in an appropriate manner which is a really challenging task contrary to the previous two examples. The correct symbols interpretation is only possible upon the investigation of the piece’s background. Thus, a brief review helps a viewer to understand the meaning of the column in Kahlo’s painting – it symbolizes the painter’s damaged spine at the moment of the piece’s creation. Likewise, the ugly image of the lady in the “Untitled # 229” is expected to express a protest against the exploitation of female images in fashion and media. As such, both pieces show that sometimes symbols examination requires additional research and analytical effort on the part of a viewer.