thoughts on the convention of qualification

art is simple. expression immediate. tangible incarnations; complex and cumbersome.

on matters of segmental appreciation

“it is a one-sided silver-painted cardboard consequence that one foot finds the flat. a sawbuck in the back. spent in futures at the deli on the corner of nostalgia and forth. it will be a big sandwich of broken tooth.”

see what we see

knowledge does not create sensitivity for me. it enhances understanding, enables awareness. just because i realize the differences does not now give me the “right” or make me a “whole new person” or someone that is now more sensitive because i realize it. that is as trivial and nonsense to me as are impulsive trends. do i now see clothes that were not there before? naked is naked.

things are until they are not (or something else)

the above "title" is what i am, a part of what i am, the whole of i am. but the madness-tangent (that is completely abstract “a point of view”) also creates something inside me that has me rendering, or committing to tangible form, the abstract. i do not do this through manufactured purpose or cause. it is an instinctive compulsion. for lack of better words or abstract communication i am an “artist.” i am made so by all that i am. being an “artist” (or what i like to refer to as “person of expression” or “expressioner” {not expressionist since that word is already taken and thus poses potential confusion}) is result, not occupation or hobby or preference. perhaps those ideas can be represented as well coincidentally. the overlap causes some muddiness or confusion to the awareness and communication of the ideas represented here or in any of my(or my the relative type of human i am a sample of) byproducts(expressive forms of the senses or sensibilities).
i am an expressioner, and i need no explanation, title, or demand understanding; however, in being a human with this expressive observatory attribute the resultant byproduct of expressive bits either in static conventional, unconventional, or recognized-convention works (but widely known and considered as “art” works), all that i am is what is. is what has come to be as a combination of all that i represent by what has contributed and influenced what has gathered(in experience or otherwise) within me.
i am a representation of element and time and evolution and eventuality conclusions, static fragments and segments falling away through change and continuum. my mental dynamic (instinct intellect and intuition – intuition being a dynamic of experience and knowledge and also where wisdom is derived from) creates me interpreter. interpreter of what i represent collectively but also interpreter of the continuum. [side note: continuum interpretations can only be experienced first-hand however, much like freshly homemade tortillas, bread, or other things with a quick oxidation, decay, or change factor.]
and so, what i create in writing, in saying, in doing, in being, is simply what is. to use a popular (but inaccurate phrase) “what needs to be.” this idea seems to apply to all humans and, ultimately, to all in known existence.
and the reason for this writing is to address questions and issues or circumstances i’ve observed. there are beliefs or perspectives that unwitting/unintentionally limit or confuse “results” with “intentions.” the results or the work or the product/byproducts are static forms or indicators (at best) of the source “interpreter.” the interpreter may be human, or nonhuman, or some type of dynamic that “produces.” understanding and specifically understanding “intention” comes from the source. the closer to the source the more direct the understanding may be.“art” is what it comes to be, whether guided by purposeful reason or intuitive feelings. art is expression, even beyond what is conventionally, commonly associated with, or accepted as “art.” “art” is a byproduct of the human dynamic. the idea of “expression,” however, lends to an attribute that transcends mere human activity. so “expression” encompasses or represents the abstract. possibility and potential are limitless there. and since humans live with the influence of the abstract (our minds being enabled with abstract thought) it would seem that static forms would not be so attractive as they have continued to be through our known and relative history, but they are. organic and changing beings perhaps like static forms because of their consistent nature and relative comforts attached to those associations.

balance

expression will out. for some more or less. for all, a constant. how expression manifests is seemingly infinite to human perspective. expression is what i react to. it is what i feel. i have not decided this. it is me. and this is not to say i am not responsible for my actions or being, after all i am aware of the context i exist within; the segment of time and it’s attached realities. i feel the changing relatives and temporary constants. i am sensitive to the cultural-all and existence-entire. i find it difficult to carry-on with argument because, to me, “it”(argument-if anything) is about understanding. our state of awareness and it’s abstract nature is enabled to connect through understanding; understanding and not “being understood.” so while i do not see the relevance of “agreeing” or not or in winning or losing an argument i do, however, see the goodness and relevance of understanding and learning.we each keep our own universe, in other words “reality” or understanding, perception, or point of view. the integrity of our gathering, the benefit of what each of us are (especially to the social-group-entire “humanity”) is lost when we alter our “core” to accommodate one another. this has nothing to do with natural/balanced enhancement of the core through experience or the idea of “compromise.” because compromise takes place in the topical layers of interaction with one another, all the while the core remains true to the individual’s experience, “gatherings,” or ultimately, who that individual is. i do not feel anything for self-sacrifice* when it affects the core. because ultimately that undermines the individual’s benefit, ultimately resulting in a detrimental outcome (whether subtly or prominently realized/recognized) to the original element that the change was enacted for.

*total sacrifice (committing oneself to something, the result of which is expiration of the physical body to whatever extent aka “death”) does not alter the core of the individual as does self-sacrificing. total sacrifice destroys the known physical incarnation of the core, but not it’s abstract mental integrity.

"art needs no explanation"

better worded as “expression needs no explanation”

is a truth. of course, dependant on point of view or perspective.
the negation of the phrase comes from the identification of this fact:
that for the person who understands that which the phrase represents does not realize it through that phrase. and in the compulsion to connect and share this with others results in an awareness that says: if one needs ask, then one is not aware or that, for whatever reason, wants to know or connect or become closer through connection to the idea or entity that the question arises from.
basically,
the phrase is pointless to say because those who know it don’t need to be told it and those who do not will not understand it.

eventualities

when someone says “should be” especially “you should be,” they are ultimately referring to an ideal or a recognized convention(to whatever degree); all are abstracts. language is a tool, however, i believe there are many people the world-over that do not fully grasp the concept. they are perhaps aware of the idea of language as a tool, they may even remember it being told to them in that exact way. but the main language(s) that a person uses to communicate are a constant and thus susceptible to being taken for granted. the same could be said for the ability to breath or see, move limb, or even the state of occupation of the being we each articulate and live through. all easily forgotten because of their constant presence.
we are enabled. and in the madness of possibility we recognize the similarities, the familiarities, the relative constants, and other forms that give us the ability to connect with one another and to share-and-understand what we have become through our experiences. we connect with each other much in the same way that all matter tends to connect- and we thrive by that.

thus, how are humans-entire to react? to be? what is our “true” nature and what is false? ultimately i cannot believe in true or false, there is only “is.” “is” being the result of what we all are and continue to be. for convention and human cultures this does not admonish or provide excuse to behaviour or actions taken, it is an observation that seems to attempt to escape the confines of human fussery and controls; that is, it is my mind feeling something that is outside of what it may understand.

it is funny (makes me laugh) because i am trying to understand my own differences from others; at least in what others allow to be shared with others. i have this feeling that there is much that is hidden from general-show other than the obvious things we each keep private. for example, one of the most common things is for people to clean-house when company comes over. not just tiding up, but actual overhauls of their normal arrangement of things. once company is gone, there is the reinstatement of the old setup. what!?
we all remain separate because we each generally have a sense that only we act or behave or feel the way we do. and this is mainly promoted by the fact that we have little opportunity to observe what each other does.

the majority dominates influence over the rule. the phrase “one person can change the world” is relatively false. to better capture what i believe to be the root feeling behind this phrase, the phrase should read “one person can influence the world.” because the word “change” seems to be taken, by the average person, as meaning “substantial control” (or what i call direct influence). and i have not observed where an individual of anything has that attribute/ability. an individual only has a small percentage of influence over their actions/life. an individual entity can be afforded a position of heightened influence by the contribution of the other influences of existence thus giving the individual more apparent effect in their realized performance(actions).
reality is what we make it. in culture, or in “the group” reality is what we all agree on and live by.

observation statement

it is notable that “expression” is a separate element/idea from “making a living.” that the value of appealing or being understandable(stood) by/to any other person (to whatever degree/size that may be) is rooted in the abstract cultural device: “making a living.” “expression” is innate, existing as a separate characteristic from “making a living” (or ultimately “survival”).

this came to be written from my thoughts that expression and survival are separate. that it is human culture, or abstract devices(thought, conventions, rules, etc.) that merge the two.