What are we looking for when we view art? If a child were in a gallery and two walls were covered by paintings. One side has the works of Rothko, Mitchell, Miró. The other Eyck, Veronese, Rembrandt. Which side would they be attracted to? The engagement to art results the valuation. Each genre requires its own engagement, which can be regarded as a mode of experience. And experience is unbearably rich. What I find enjoyable in abstract paintings is meaninglessness. I hope the work tells me nothing; I want free-quality of colour and shape; aesthetics without reference. But I know the beauty of a Rembrandt is not in Rembrandt. It is in the source- the viewing person. The Rembrandt is a stimulus which evokes. Proof: many are indifferent to paintings. Now think of nature. It has a similar engagement-requirement. "Nature...is nothing but the inner voice of self-interest." - Baudelaire One can extract aesthetic sense from a mountain, a beach, a Pollock, while another cannot and will not because they're not able to affirm, or do not even have, a secret to play with. Imagine you could form one sentence to communicate the reality of beauty experienced. “That for which we find words is something already dead in our hearts...” - Nietzsche And why do people buy millions worth of paint hazardly splattered on a canvas? It's an investment like real estate. Don't think too much of it. Top Mark Rothko - Blue, Orange, Red - 1961 Joan Mitchell - City Landscape - 1955 Joan Miró - Ciphers and Constellations in Love with a Woman - 1941 Bottom Jan van Eyck - Madonna at the Fountain- 1439 Paolo Veronese - The Wedding at Cana - 1563 Rembrandt van Rijn - The Storm on The Sea of Galilee - 1633
I am wondering how to write. I'm reminded of Nietzsche. In The Gay Science his prose was, in comparison to his later works, boring. I think he had a distaste for writing so practically. His thoughts changed; to read what he had had wrote made him cringe. And so, he later wrote as to make the text ambiguous. The perspectives were welcomed. And he was made more than what he was. Reading someone's blog posts, the same person I've silently ridiculed because of how detailed and verbose and well-done they write, I'm inspired. There exists what I want in this person; to write, and do it with conviction. Their writing looks like worship. I'm hateful of stereotypical writing techniques when trying to write a blog. I'm agitated at having a model of a blog post when I am writing. It kills creativity and motivation. I want to write more. My life feels over-saturated with meaning and I want to express it. I have grown a nightmare out of silence. It is hard to translate floating thoughts into syntax and grammar. Intimidating, when you've always done it with your most buoyant ones. Words are like cages. When I was younger I admired long and tangled sentences. Sentences like garden hoses. I considered them signs of high ability, and I emulated them. Now, I'm over it. I like simplicity, minimalism. Emily Dickinson is right for me. I want my thoughts to be fatty. My writing like a razor. The process: to trim and make lean. I think of how I appear to others through my writing. A thing I've naturally learned by writing short stories is that there is an amateurish engagement where one is trying to convey to the reader who and what one is through the story. This is noticeable to nearly anyone, and lame. The writer is an epigram-generator. They are trying to translate the drama of movie scenes, abusing tropes, ending every paragraph with a closure, placing pointless references. Trying too hard, hoping and begging for the reader to see them through the words. I've written like this. I don't, or I'd like to think so, write like this anymore. Writing is vulnerable; I have to be okay with how others view me. Not uncaring, but okay. I dislike this audience in my head, especially because I like to think they're not there. Notice I did not say hate.
Poetry in the 21st
Speed disciplined the mind. The mode: time translated to purpose. I've considered poetry to be in-conducive, a fight with memory, shuttled through a black box. What information do you need? You are experiencing through words- What? To sit alone and read was once strange. One had to speak the word, or sing, to an audience. Augustine appeared other-worldy in his chair, reading silently. Is there contempt for inner music?
I am content
The one with science and technology being sensationalized – idiosyncrisis
There she is
There she is, my love, oh So pretty, so worthwhile Look at the hours go by Take a look at how She uses compassion As 10 sharpened prongs, oh My love, That voice is a Sweet prosody, hear The sizzling of her brand On my skin, oh My empathy, young heart, oh.
sometimes i get stuck in my head.
the green of the grass outside sometimes gets stuck in my vision.
the motion blur in the car sometimes is not blurred enough.
the music in the bar gets into my veins and it’s not loud enough, sometimes.
i don’t want to keep sinking into the same old feelings,
i like the new, like changing old clothes,
it takes time for me to realize i’m not my feelings
There is a need to make sense of experience through a language that is more authentic.
Language sets a standard to define our non-standard selves.
If you analyze yourself deeper, burrowing down to the centre (whatever that is),
the common words, symbols
become disingenuous means to express what it is found;
Convenient placeholders- ready made constructions for mass use.
Poetry is created from an inward movement
orbited to one mind
in the struggle of re-definition.
Experience is the greatest teacher;
Yes, but you need to be humble enough to
understand the lesson.
decisions made between couples
Like a scene of a crime,
you come back to find what you missed
the first time.
It was too much to take in then;
the shock: too sincere;
so you go back,
and go again;
the memorable dries on wallpaper,
the senses clear
from a cloud of baking soda;
and each step backwards demands more of what was missed
until mystery writes another
the stain of time…
Elementary particles explode in brilliant fragments when they collide with one another inside the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland; curious physicists from safe distance observe a consequence that reveals the deepest laws nature keeps hidden from view; A kind of entertainment, really. Somewhere out there, in countries from the 1st to the 3rd, people, in the thick of things, intending or not, collide with the world; exposing laws inside their own nature kept concealed; consequences pending. Among other cases, it’s so evident that it has become a dogma- when authority is not legitimate, people stop obeying. They might even carry out revolution. But yet, consider the position of a single, solitary, particle collision as it obeys until ; and a physicist's head turns just in time to miss it... Maybe there is something deeper than quantum physics hidden near Geneva.