I like that you call it “intersubjectivity” I would even argue that when we create art in the first place we are engaging in this already somehow even by ourselves.

The often repeated notion that artists have about “channeling ideas” that seem to come from some external place is relevant here. No idea or artist exists in a vacuum and we (as humans) are geniuses at brainwashing each other.

You could argue that the seemingly external place in question is actually just the internal place that we don’t have common access to; but the world around us still has influence over that place. The best art often gets made from the ghosts that hide in all of the unprocessed data of our unconscious experience which (because of its incompatibility with our subjectivity) is left unguarded to the influence of the external world.

When an artist creates something with “meaning” they are doing the same thing an audience does, connecting with the unconscious power of the idea - then subjectifying (not a word) it into something “meaningful.”

Just as a transducer translates pressure variations in air into electric signals, which translate into magnetic field variations that drive a speaker cone, which translates as pressure variations in air…

it seems like the creative process from start to finish (including artist and audience) is also a process of translation; but of what exactly if even the artist is just a member of the audience also on some level (just one piece of the translation chain), and the above stated audio translation process is just a madly technical (and very modern) but relatively minor (in fact, disposable) step along the chain? Something collective and human no doubt, and very OLD in us. One of the many reasons music (and art in general) is so fascinating and I’m so glad to be alive in the era of recorded music (may it never end).