I don’t credit your motives with attempting to understand rather than convince. You ask why I express a certain point of view, but I know you are just asking as an opportunity to express your point of view. And I, by explaining, am not doing anything different.
Taking a thing personally, the responsibility of a grouping; either the self-righteousness of superiority, or of oppression: and in arguing, not allowing for the certitude of the other. Having, after such intimacy, to return to the civilities of unacquaintedness–insecure, as distance from a subject is not maintained.
Are you enjoying the cruel game of ignorance? In your self-righteousness you feel a deserved remonstrance with all who would cross you.
Justice serves revenge for perceived wrongs, but perception isn’t always just.
Didn’t I know better, but didn’t I do it anyway?
…And knowing better made what of doing? And doing, was it better because it was done?
but in a way unconceived-of at the outset—verily developing from nothing.
everything is better than the one thing that is worse—
and to be worse, makes it possible for something to be better.
knowing better, doing better, being better, seeming better
–knowing doling seeming being: understanding.
The possibilities afforded by concentration are balanced by the opportunities available to the mind without a destination; or, sometimes a journey is a journey.
Art and society
Where the viewer of art is stimulated by differences in the plane of vision, so too the member of society will be more active therein when its components are varied.
The quality of beauty…
The quality of beauty remains the gratification of our emotions. Where needs and wants are fulfilled, a sense of satisfaction pervades. In the search for order, which is fulfillment, security, and pleasure; the key is aesthetics: rhythm, harmony, and certainty—certainty in terms of trust, where the issue is the purveyance of a needed thing, but historically that need has been intermittently filled.
Beauty is gratification, beauty is gratifying. Dreams, sensations, experiences, and memories collude to subordinate ethics to personal gratification.
Among my ideas about what I draw–considered after the composition, I have noticed a preference for the juxtaposition of forms that ‘seem’ otherwise contradictory. Examples of this are in the placement of flowing watercolour fields under, over, or through fields of square geometry, either left blank (open) or crafted with alternate elements (pigments). Another example of this proclivity is the use of filled-in fields which are placed variously alongside those ‘open’ fields. Curves and lines play their part in reinforcing a diametrical opposition–being similar in that they share line width (line being a misnomer here) but diverting in that the line–here’s where it gets tricky–the line follows an obvious path from point to point, where a curve, though obvious under certain perspectives, contains (?) parameters of the chaotic, or at least relative. The confusion is in the concept of point to point, since a curve also connects points, two essentially, but many more dependent on the depth of variables one chooses to introduce into perception.
How does one ‘introduce’ a variable into perception? This relies fundamentally on the make-up the viewer, though it can be enhanced or manipulated by the artifice of the craftsman. The placement of fields can act as an enhancement, in that proximity, or lack thereof can demonstrate a relationship, similarities, both in geometry and ‘pattern’ can be equally effective. It strikes me that a mathematical relationship exists between the number of variables in a field-total–the enhancements, when combined gain a proportional effect on the perspective, while the unintentional enhancements (light, paper, frame, weather, sounds, mood) contribute severally yet concurrently to the perspective of the viewer.
One of the interesting aspects of this is the viewpoint of the artist as viewer of his own work, i.e. the artist becomes equally a viewer, and is affected by the unintentional enhancements equally as any non-craftsman viewer would be.
What is the meaning of meaning, why? How would one define an end, a goal? If one attempts something, the successful outcome of the attempt might be the end, but in art the end will surpass the objectives of the creator in that the viewer will infuse his objectives into the goals of the artist…
And so, if the subject audience is able continuously to manufacture new purpose from one purpose, the reason for being of the ‘original’ becomes convoluted. Is there a solution to this? Perhaps the discontinuing of purpose, at the outset of creation—for without an objective, meaning, or the presumption of success is obviated or made at least more pliant—is solution.
…people hurriedly pursuing their business, and dawdlers passing nobody bring the song to mind–“look at all the lonely people,” and I ask myself the question, where do they all go?…a blip on a human radar screen. Senses heightened by too much coffee, and a will to survive; not as a simpleton, but still with simplicity, making some sensations especially sensitive.
While working on a commission recently, it occurred to me that I have a real problem with constraint. Not commitment, but the situation of immobility that is created by rules, expectations, and limits–art as a practice of zen works well, but constraints are only acceptable within the parameters of creation, not theme.
Patterns are something, designs another
Rhythm’s a thing, harmony’s something other.