perception

for the kind of person(artist) i am, category and staticism(buying into and indulging static-based behaviours) do not work – or should i say “bode well.” there are many artists that buy into convention. they feel they must to some varying degree. the same thing that contributes to my socially-perceived failure is the same thing that keeps my dynamic balanced. “art” may produce tangible leavings, it may not. art by social-definition is more concrete than my state of being creates. art to me is me and all. latent or realized, it is the same. for most i will be too existential or serious or perhaps something more like “explaining away or justifying that he’s not famous, professional, recognized, accomplished, or having done anything but talk and ponder.”
awareness is regardless of action or product. reality and existence are no less the same. my person can be attacked but what i present is the subject at hand and not where it comes from. reference ad hominem.

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.”

dazzled by power moves

what does technique have to do with expression?

but many people who practice art or dictate it's borders are very concerned about technique. thus many believe technique to be a requirement for art to be "valid." that means they are ultimately saying that "expression is valid by the use or mastering of technique." perhaps they are not saying "solely valid" but any idea having to do with validity of expression is absurd to me.

perhaps my version or idea of "expression" is different than the accepted medium of artists/expressioners.

technique is a means to an end. the "end" is the work or rendering of the abstract into tangible forms (tangible including sound, sight, touch, taste, etc.).
an artist or person of expression (of whatever art that is - music, food, visual, writing, etc.) does what they can to capture what comes naturally to them. through this capturing of what they feel, they are also representing who they are, their experiences, their gathering as a being. and this all is transmitted along with the expressive core.

conventions can enable expression, they can also destroy it.

conventions are created like all human inventions/creations: by necessity. an evolutional path of enablement.

rules, laws, conventions, forms, standards, traditions, all these kinds of things are temporary segments.

this, my idea of art (expression) is not so marketable, thus it cannot be popular. thus i am just another apparent loony out there in the world. conventions and rules and techniques have to be followed to be valid in human culture, schools, standards, etc.
right?

but human culture itself is organic, always changing. not static. not set in stone. even the hardest material on earth will change in time.
our nature is one of change and dynamic and collective influence.
it is those who seek power or comfort and who have fear or doubts or who lack confidence that do what they can to keep things the way they are. to not ask questions or experiement, to be resistant to their own nature: the nature of change.

i'm not talking about anarchy, i'm talking about an acceptance or openness to possiblity.

it seems that most people (artists included) are receptive to or gravitate towards those who show a prowess in technical or skilled ability(or the aspect in of itself) rather than the connection made with the soul, the understanding gathered, the interpretations made.

for the person of expression art is instant. it is everything.
the need to make a living, or to contain insanity, to enable understanding or connection - these are some of the reasons why the expression becomes tangible through the artists means(i.e. hands, tools, etc.).