In the scene in which Newt and Julian Castle talk about Newt’s painting, the narrator asks us to view works of art, and all works of man, as having multiple interpretations. This is important to understanding the book as it delves deeply into a consideration of responsibility that no one is willing to assume. It is also deeply ironic because it begs the question of whether a picture of meaninglessness is a meaningless picture. This distinction asks us whether art and human endeavor is a “useful lie.”

Newt’s response to Julian Castle’s statement “’It’s black. What is it­­—hell?’” (168) is indicative of the idea that art has multiple meanings. His statement, “’It means whatever it means,’ said Newt” (168) shows that Newt, although he has a specific subject in mind for his painting, understands that multiple interpretations are viable. This shows how hard it is to ascribe meaning or substance to abstracts such as the portrayal of art, or the placing of blame and responsibility.

Angela’s complaint “’I don’t think it’s very nice… I think it’s ugly’” shows the way that people often take complex issues at face value and make broad assumptions about them without endeavoring to understand the meaning. At least Julian Castle endeavors to find meaning. This is important to the novel in that blame is often misattributed based on people’s strong visceral reactions to complex stimuli. In not endeavoring to find meaning in the painting, Angela is the archetype of the adage that ignorance is bliss.

Castle’s statement of “’People… keep their voice boxes [working]… in case there’s anything really meaningful to say” (169) elucidates his view that most of what people say lacks substance. This ties back into the prior two points in that for every act there are multiple viewpoints to consider, and that many of those viewpoints are likely derived from visceral reactions that lack understanding of the fundamental act itself. People talk to talk, rather than to say anything that could ever truly capture the substance of an event. This seems very moral relativist in that it gives us no concrete facts, but rather tears down what many claim as facts as the product of their limited understanding and desire to just hear themselves talk.

The idea that the painting of meaninglessness or meaningless painting (that in Newt’s own words largely represents the façade of human understanding and the misattribution of substance to an otherwise meaningless thing) is of a cat’s cradle shows the key point throughout the book: things are never entirely as they seem. There is no cat, there is no cradle. Vonnegut wants the reader to assess how his society deals largely in misinformation.