Grapes = sex?
Only if you're Caravaggio. And then, only sometimes.
What it is -- often artists put objects in picture just because they're pretties. Sometimes, though, they're 'saying something'. One can look at the symbolic language of this period and interpret what the artist means.
You know, I never got that sexy thing from Caravaggio.
Everybody's going to see a painting a little differently. Consider this one, Here Some folks will see an offer of a glass of wine. Others will see it a representation of the wine god with his signature product. To others it will be blatantly sensual -- the boy offering himself for homosexual liaison. For still others, it's about death and decay and the transience of youth and human pleasure.
All these interpretations are legitimate.
In that painting I link to above, the fruit is old, wormy and past date. It's maybe a vanitas. Ummm ... here is a discussion of that set of fruit. You have to scroll down a bit to find it.
Now why does any of this matter in that first paragraph from the O.P.?
The O.P. is speaking to an audience sufficiently familiar with Caravaggio that they can immediately recognize which painting is reffed. (This one here apparently.) Being knowledgeable, these readers are also familiar with the symbology in Caravaggio's paintings. When the internals of the POV character go off on the 'flowers are so much prettier' riff, the writer might consider showing this is the character's innocent view of the picture -- 'unreliable narrator' -- rather than the author's view.
Then again, I'm a sucker for internal thoughts etc.
I'm very fond of them myself. My editor is always crossing out great swathes of lovely internal stuff.
Last edited: