credit and perception

i see something special in the cracks of street markings. i didn’t lay down the paint that ultimately gave product for the cracks to exist within. if i do lay down my own medium to nurture the dynamic that cracks develop from then does this make me any more “owner” or “credit taker” of this? it seems to me, from examples like what was just mentioned, that it is the person who can “see” that is “owner” or “creator” or “credit taker”(this is considering that this distinction is needed – which i have observed is a prevalent necessity by the mean mass of humanity) that person, that “gathering” with the vision, with the perspective, the way in which they interpret-entire (created by all they represent) is the significant element to abstract expression, otherwise known as “art” or “artist” but what i only hear as “expressioner(ist)”(but “expressionist” confuses representation since i am not talking about any kind of “movement”).

to argue or test the above observation i have to look to other contexts of awareness and resulting expressions. in the above there is more a “finessing” or “orchestration” or “suggesting” that is being practiced by the visioned-expressioner. it is not a more direct application or construction by the means of the individual, rather it is utilizing knowledge and reliance on indirect or outside processes to create. there is usually a selection process along the way to “feel out” the resulting products that connect most. but ultimately there is high reliance on the production of an outside or indirect element.

in ways this says (and supports theories i have discovered) that “art” or anything created is “owned” by everyone. we are all connected. and if anything, if recognition and credit are need-taken, then it is the individual(s) that can see the function, the beauty, ultimately those who “connect” with the “product”(whether physical or mental) that ultimately are “owner.” [and please excuse these words of ownership and credit, i do not use them lightly but they are the best words i have to communicate this* thinkings]

anything i(or anyone) create (or paint), is also owned by others who create their own connections from those works of my relative origin. the need to own or be recognized by static devices (mental/physical) seems anti-beneficial** to human culture, maybe even humanity. with “connection” as our relative purpose all else seems to flourish and thrive. we are our selfs. we do best by our own balance and dynamic. we then share that through connections and we our nourished.
we each see things through different gatherings of interpretive dynamic. we each produce our own interpretations continually, whether recognizable or not, direct or not ways. and for those that feel the immensity in all things (not by education or being able to recognize it – but by innate continuum, it having always been and continuing to be there), their actual being is the “art” or expressive dynamic that is ultimately “of value,” and not the static forms*** indicating this “vision,” this immensity. i have come to question even posterity or “historical record” as a benefit. but again, history is a type of tool. it can be utilized in balance or not. so the collection and documentation, display, and attention given to “static forms” is simply itself. whether it is a benefit or not depends on many things.
galleries and museums and many tools like the bowl seem relatively good, but i see so often the unbalanced use of these tools by the mean-mass of humanity. whether or not i consider a thing “good” means nothing (in the context of collective reality) when the majority says or believes otherwise. the mean-mass turns galleries into stale halls and museums into jack-in-the boxes. they also turn the bowl into a weapon lobbed or a vessel of fooded-escape. they bloat by these means and they do well for it.
since there is no definition to reality but what we are aware for ourselves, there is no fault here; no right or wrong. it simply is the coexistence of realities.

where i do not inherently feel the need to claim or own works that inadvertently are created by the eventuality of my dynamic, most others in the mean do; and do so fiercely. being aware, observing, and recognizing this my dynamic utilizes knowledge and experience, along with instinct, to mix a blend of survival in this, otherwise, weird scenario or context. i enjoy the use of the word “weird” but it is not so weird, it is more like nonsense(“making no sense” and not a rash detractor or dismissive response) or irrelevance to me. sometimes i say “i came with the innate skill at chess, but the game most are playing is the game they are good at: life” it is tawdry but it captures the essence of what i sense. i find myself with lackluster skill at the rules they retain, but otherwise i would sign my expiration. so the mix i blend keeps me alive, relatively sane, not in a bubble (that does not sustain), functionally – well, relatively functional, and i am able to thrive within this dissonant dynamic of realities(mine and all else).

*sic. i like this usage more than the word “these”
**detrimental would be my second choice, but anti-beneficial feels better here.
***results or products of expression “art”
[notes like the above, do i have to explain myself? no. and there is no purpose to this, it is me responding to me. my body articulating(action-speech or otherwise) what is conjured in my brain’s dynamic.]