There is a proliferation of art critics who feel invested by the mission of explaining art. They are suffering from a rare but diffuse disease: acute explanation (I prefer the Italian version: spiegazionite acuta). Almost all of them are Anglo-Saxon, but they can be found everywhere. I have seen the case of Quentin Metsys and this would be enough to get an idea of their method of analysis. Symbols, symbols, and symbols everywhere, so many that the work examined is full of them; continuous calls, citations (which are adjectives in a meaningless speech); finally geometric constructions such as transversely diagonals, perspective axes, repetitions. All this for what purpose? Perhaps to be more persuasive towards the general public? Obviously not because these "explanations" for idiots are artificial and sometimes incomprehensible. So you will ask what is their purpose. It is with the aim to shine with reflexed light and to strut in the abstruseness of their silly speeches. Metsys certainly does not need such "explanations" because he gets very well on his own; not always an apple is the symbol of sin as an extinguished candle is not the symbol of the mortality of life.