thoughts on the convention of qualification

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

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.).

when nonsense overwhelms (or “when i'm irritated/pist off.”)

for the artist please disregard this for the most part, this writing is mainly for those who are not “aware.”(and for my own exhaust. it is my nature that cannot embrace and accept the need to explain this stuff to those that are not going to be that well receptive of it anyway, but it is my current nature, and perhaps i should not indulge this, but for the most part i do accept. for some reason, right now, i am compelled, past my own state, to have to explain all of this and otherwise, be so negative.) art is not just canvas or other familiar grounds or supports, it is not limited to those forms. art is anything an artist creates. innovative forms or the work of “genius” are simply “new” forms or means that a larger governing body(this can be a group of people or an influential individual) becomes aware of and shares with others. the “artist”(or the aware individual/person with the vision/sight) has in them what is already speaking. it already has been speaking. the ability to articulate and resultantly-communicate this vision or particular interpretation depends on many things. i "should not have to"(better word and phrasing is "wish i didn't have to" but i'm emotional right now) say this but i will given the audience this is written for(though the chance this audience has of receiving this is very low 1. because of their inherent nature and 2. because i’m not disseminating this to their relative outlets of understanding or awareness): “things” like context, environment, culture, guardians, and experiences. for some artists this is easier since their particular awareness is stronger at birth (their inherent level is, by whatever elements, more intense) for others it is more difficult. and i imagine a gradated level of this “artist” element in all humans. you have the most intense levels outward towards the “fringe” and you have the least amount of these levels towards the core. the core of what?.. the core of our species. the core is by nature, more stable, thus it has high resistance to change and a low tolerance for movement. it also benefits from relative higher protection than the adjacent outward layers. the core is more dense with relative higher pressure present than the adjacent outward layers. it is also my idea that our individual “types” are not necessarily born in or to the layers that we ultimately arrive at. so an artist born in the core will hopefully, eventually be pushed outward to the outer layers they are more in synch with. perhaps the artist will be crushed in the core however, this happens; it also occurs that the artist born in the core remains stuck in the core from too much pressure. likewise there are people of the core that are born in the outer layers. depending on the their inherent level of awareness they will either be influenced by the outer layer and remain or they will find more familiar ground towards the core.

at times something in me wears down or gives way to the prevalent nonsense fussings of most everyone around me. not that i am without nonsense fussing or habits or vice, but that my kind has no place with the common types; the prevalent types. i have little or no outlet, whereas most others do have. not “seem to” have but actually have outlets. of course ultimately it is i who am the “problem” because i am the one “out of the norm” either because of my sudden change in apparent mood or in the deeper inherent continual state of who i am. that i find few rhythms or sense with most people, conventions, and the singular and static forms expected and pushed around the social table.

i am self-effacing and modest, but i am also aware. too much aware (it seems). and am maddened by this awareness. so should i be “tactful” and arrange my words to not be so direct for the benefit of comfort for those that do not see what i see?(maybe so i can be more “likeable” or so people will be more likened to receive what i have to share? this idea is nonsense to me however.) if i see no clothes then there are no clothes – to me of course. but what else am i supposed to see? if everyone else believes that there are clothes when there are none, that is nonsense to me. so “too bad” if i hurt: feelings or whatever else(my own or anyone's), it is not my nonsense that set up feelings to be hurt, whatevers to be disappointed. it is the lack of want to understand and to accept or embrace that ultimately does that. not me*. i do not expect or demand change in anyway. i am not asking for people to agree with me or “see things my way.” i do not care if i am understood or not. i care about connection. and connection does bring with it, understanding but “being understood” or known is not my goal or intention. those are happy byproducts if anything. elements that contribute to the dynamic of connection.

*though obviously, being aware of what one contributes to and the possible result/outcomes, ultimately i am responsible. however, ownership is an abstract and that has to be gauged on one's own importances, values, definement of reality/universe, self preservation and sanity, etc.

to start(or is that repeat/reiterate), i need no credit. i don’t need “my” self or ideas to be understood. i do not feel for those things. however, what i want is understanding. and the distinction may be confusing. i want common sense, thinking, understanding, awareness, acceptance, wonder in people. i want those things for people, for humanity. it might be an unrealistic ideal though. but it is what i feel for.
perhaps i want others to be enabled with the ability to see what i see. likewise, i like being able to see what others see, but this is not reciprocated by most. most do not feel for this. (“see” – meaning awareness). who i am is inconsequential. i do not need to be recognized for vision or awareness or idea. i just want a relative goodness to be out there for my kind – humans. perhaps what i perceive to be “goodness” is not so. well, it is obviously “not so” due to the way of humans-entire. meaning, on average, humans are continually producing the result that they are capable of. past results are what “history” is made from, and current results are apparent and obvious. future results? that would be governed by evolution.


i want there to be perspective out there.
i want there to be perspective for my species.
i want there to be perspective out there for people.

perspective might mean “understanding”; that all persons have the ability to transcend their own contexts even those of the extremes of prisoner or slave. but is this asking too much? a far-fetched ideal created from too much abstract indulgence.

anyway, i am driven mad with all the nonsense around me. usually i can endure, but i want to not have to endure but rather embrace and accept this. to know the state of things and not be driven so mad by what i already know or expect through experience. things change even amoung relative temporary standards and present permanences(meaning things change, but speaking in terms of a current human “lifetime” some things change so slow that the change will not occur soon enough in its entirety or in relative noticeability to be observed within a single individual’s lifetime).

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.

coins in my pocket

here are some words cobbed and continue to be used by myself. these words also give example into my love and articulation and molding of the word and letterform medium, and that i consider and hope to enable others the awareness that, all is expression, art, and abstract. all is what we make it.

cob or cobbed (created by necessity or evolution. allusion to the acronym “cbn” “created by necessity”)

occulatim (done as observed or seen – derivative of verbatim, created from necessity since the situation this word represents occurs within my observed reality often)

allusional (cob to accommodate the way i use the word “allusion.” but also a blend of both words “allusion” as well as “illusion” meaning something that is not what it appears or is not as familiar as would normally be for what it is mainly because it evokes or seems much like something else entirely)

mcotzinn [mzoshin or mzosheen] (the “gibberish” i speak. my language, especially that is used in place of and when normal and known words/language feel inadequate in expressing emotion.)

759/735 - "795" means "art." "735" means "photography." (homage to the library and its dewey decimal system)

canopitych {cob derived from "multych"} any amount of paintings or (art)works comprising a singular attempt at rendering an idea, capturing emotion/thought, or creating a language for the "voice." this may or may not be similar in style or effect to diptychs or triptychs. it just means that more than one relatively solid(tangible) form will be used in the capturing of the expression. it does not imply or necessarily mean that the mulitple items will be relatively near each other in physical space or time.