It's Odd
Creative Madhouses
Just thinking stuff...
When you get it right, do it wrong, rinse and repeat. Failings succeed, successes fail. The failings wouldn't fail. The succeed (a layering of meaning) wouldn't be success. Meaning the interactivity wouldn't involve the mirroring outcome. Think wild strawberries in a field...
Mobius & Non-Universaism
Cell Phones & Human Trafficking.
Art & Constantine's Sword
Maybe not Constantine's Sword? This is in reference to the book that discusses the context among contexts, such as the context that worked in relation to the Holocaust, which among my polemics I even reference the Christian Social Party. However, this isn't picking up with polemics anymore, in that, I have my tacit binder form, of a method of narrative computation that will work within the DeColonial context of language, of a differing relationship with the language itself, of a institutional form that is entirely new. That is a matter that one can take note of with the informatic models of philosophy cultures.
This reference to the book, though, was one line in particular I recalled, as I honed in on my digital form of art presentation, that intends on working with tapestry, in reference to Carol King, and in reference to ancient tradition, when we explore how the designs relate to textile. Even in my travels within and outside the country, and my explorations among the library and archives, when matters delve into ancient form, there is a crossroads, among the forms presented. This particular passage works within the context of ancient form of Christianity and Jewish tradition, but this should also include Muslim tradition as well, including reading through history books of Mecca, and the symbols of the past, reflecting all 3 traditions including the Star of David. Anyhow, the passage:
The so-called "parting of the ways" between Christian and Jews would take place gradually over two or three centuries. All early conflict occurs within the multifaceted world of Judaism, not only in the sense that various sects and subgroups still identify themselves as "Israel," but also in the sense that the nature of the disputes reflects the long tradition of intra-Jewish tensions, especially between prophetic and priestly strains.....Archaeological surveys of gravesites in the ancient Mediterranean world show that it is often impossible, into the second and third centuries to tell the difference between Jewish and Christian tombs. The remains of churches and synagogues dating even later show traces of mosaic decoration -- a sacred vine motif, for example -- that are similar. Christians have long been accustomed to thinking of representations of the fish, of bread, and of the cup as expressly Christian symbols, but in the age when such signs were being engraved on the walls of what we think of as Christian catacombs, non-Christian Jews were using the same symbols so much so that one historian concludes that, while Christians were gathering at the Eucharist, some Jews also were using bread and wine " as vehicles of Jewish worship and hope." ...both Jewish and Christian ritual indicates the strength of common sources...and Muslim.
Not of the literal, His-Tory, Talk-Talk, routine, but rather from the lens of artistry. Not of a literal-thinking, but rather a non-literal thinking. So it wouldn't be this need for extensive sense-making, among colonial form, or a need to be right or wrong. Rather, we can simply show insight into the matter.
A Ukrainian Synagogue:
Early Christian:
Vatican Mosaic
There's just something about the pattern continuum play, that differs from the subject play and how those forms can be used. Social media desires the subject as a foundation, even if one is engaging pattern continuum play. It's my response I think, in relation to art and this internet matter. I did a faux-persona before as sarcasm, but it wasn't really a digital presentation that I was comfortable with. It was coming across as cynical, or pseudo-celebrity, and didn't really reference or detour the mind in a way that questions the consequences of subject as foundation play. Meaning, I think art can offer violence to the world, even when it is adorned with subjects of peace. Good art, likely, holds a sobering in relation to the subject, and yet, among digital platform, that becomes more of a challenge as the subject tends to be the emphasized foundation. The artist's art, the artist's brand's art, and various degrees of separation, that still emphasize the subject as foundation. Even when matters can be whatever one likes, there remains an evaluative need, when the foundation is subject, when art serves violence, rather than peace. It's not like I would even get away from this, as I open an account to present "my" art, art that the evaluator could say this is or isn't me, and yet, the interaction sets forth the foundation of violence, that the artists are to embrace, it would seem, and yet to orient toward an ancient aesthetic, that embrace wouldn't be an inevitability. There are threads among these traditions, that are obviously together, of which wouldn't be a need to talk, as the shared designs confirm, and the continuity, wouldn't require the play of subject. I wouldn't say that I am rejecting or critiquing anything at this point, but I am detouring. My art will be used in such a way, that we all are to connect among our violent plays of subject, and yet, we can embrace a subject, among the form that will highlight that underlying assumption. I think of Kara Walker's work, and even her remark on who would we be without racism, a sobering response, to the struggling matter that seems in-need of perpetuating itself, and for desires, that aren't so peaceful. I do think violence is the foundation of this word, and taking that sobering, bitter, pill, as foundation, is a way of hindering the amplitudes of such violence, to connect with a pulse of remorse and gratitude. It's a connection that is easier said than done I think, among Facebooks, TikToks, DeepSomethings, Instagrams, etc... To even connect with a pulse, when upon presentation, you are before eyes serving others, until one becomes a block of hardened, subject, ice. The pulse wouldn't be there, but rather one is serving among the game of violence successfully, which doesn't seem to look violent at all. It seems happy and self-realized, peaceful and diplomatic, and yet subject remains as foundation.
I am satisfied with my digital work as it stands. I do think I will likely remove the literal aspects to it, though it was fun experimenting with the literal. I simply like, even among what is controlled so well in today's contemporary societies, subject as foundation, violence as perpetual priority, the juxtaposition, of a form that references the connective threading of ancient tradition, involving the culture I am a part of, provides a window in relation to the assumed position of the artist today. No artist, it would seem to me, couldn't avoid this. We all assume this position. We are all violent, and you can buy my violence for an affordable price. There's thought behind this digital play, on the second go-around, and again, I'm satisfied with this for the most part, so that's now officially on-go. I'll simply need to keep a steady pace with it.
The next push is going to be more of my physical paintings, which I've been building on and choosing mediums in relation to choice subject. Seems like I have a plan. I am excited about this, and I too will present and sell the work in this ritual of violence we all share in. The only artistry that I think differs would be like the Tibetan sand art, of a creation destroyed and without record. They wouldn't be bound to such a measure. So maybe they are the artists, and I'm the snake oil salesperson? This includes anyone in a gallery, museum, or with an online presence, etc... I just can't really say for sure? Even if temporary, there remains subject interlaced with the ritual, but to detour toward ritual, toward something other than our violence, our desires, even good-intentioned, working toward violence; to seek the window pane that reflects our beautiful, artistic, hell-raising shit. And yet, without art, as a quest for pure embodied subject, peaceful demonstration and all, we amplify the violence we already share in. To me the closest shot we have at getting through this tragedy with a semblance of grace, is to somehow connect with an ancient threading, of a possible way, even as we succumb to the subject play. So again, the digital does an acceptable job for me, among these considerations of mine, that tend to be too literal for their own good, and now the focus is on physical medium, that works from the pane of the digital projects ancient threading, to return to the subject, in a way cognizant of how dark the activity is. Tea kettles, butterflies, human form, etc... There's something vicious about it, and yet, our best shot at some sense of threaded levity pulsing through all of us. Something that holds us among some connection, in which we remain bounded.
Constantine's Sword is this officiated subject play I think. This formality developed to organize and assist, and yet, a violent engine by design. As I return to the simpler forms, of work solely from a physical medium, the comfort of falling into a style, of relations to subject, and possible officiated form, the threading becomes frayed and weathered, if not fully separated. My approach intends on challenging this matter. I'm going to fail in many respects, but failure in relation to the subject-laden success I think, of an experience lived, among these other lived experiences.
This could be Talk-Talk, but it all works in relation to this embrace of an artistic hell. I just can't be a happy painter, or pretend my work has anything to do with beauty or peace. The ancient threading, highlights what my embrace of subject actually means. My previous lived experiences couldn't actually pretend I am some wonderful soul, here to guide everyone to a field of joy. I don't think any good creative process could be that at all. It's more or less, a disturbance, an acceptance of an uneasy relation, a friction, like pearls forming from granules of sand. The pearl itself seems graceful and harmonious, but the process involved couldn't actually be. This is what I mean. The pearl can offer a reflective glint of failing success, like this art matter that embraces subject, if not among the artistic form, then among the promotions and sharing of that form. People, all of us, are violent. We are not self-realized. We are not broken. We are not lost, nor are we found. Simply put, we are violent. The good we have sobers up to this and considers the ways we can impede the embrace of subject. Contemporary-Society though, isn't about being so good. No one is untouchable, and at some point, we are to fashion ourselves into a lively walking dead it seems. People as Darwinian Wasps, Zombies of their form selves, as brands, as successes, living it up for the moment, even if they can't fathom how dead they've become, again, no pulse, no ancient threading, just subject-bodies thriving.
That is, the way in which I relate to art wouldn't be such a good matter, and yet, I still desire the matter. There is this matter of violence, while embracing the subject, but the entire affair is non-unique. It's just a collateral damage of spinning around on a rock around a ball of fire for a time. It just offers connection in a sense that isn't as disingenuous as the Talk-Talk routine, even when we are deriving a computation. Genuine, in that we are more closely referencing lived experience, rather than promoted experience. I think our words are inherently promotional, and we veil with these words all the time. It's why I prefer not to fall into that trap of boxing in on the basis of such words. It's a given death to do so. One, at some point, can get over their promotional wisdoms, invoke some semblance of bound, and move away from promotional experience toward a form that reflects one engaged in a process. If there is no process though, one is simply quiet, embodied, and the subject, like a tour guide attracting more eyes to the surface, toward their own violent hell in the name of peace. Something like that. Something confirmed and officiated and always in relation that can assist with the officiating.
Art challenges the sword. It doesn't have to be Constatine's. We all have our swords. We all have our promoted selves. We all have our officiated selves, our subject-laden desires. Even art to me is going to be a failure, but we can still detour with it toward referencing a lived experience, of something non-literal, of something that doesn't require the need for these fine plays of colonial cultivation. I even consider my planning of subject form, in terms of physical medium, of which I do want to challenge in plenty of those works, specifying agency, and agency that becomes movement away, of the subject slipping away, of something we are all going through, somewhere between our remorse and gratitude, somewhere that doesn't involve our mirroring times, and yet among those times, to explore a context that overwhelms, to return toward something lived rather than promoted. The ancient threading seems lived, and the subject dividing promotions at the surface failing as our violent desires veiled take hold. I think we can all follow that, even among the failings/successes of wordage, this embrace of subject, there are rituals, there are forms that open-up toward a threading, toward a semblance of connection, that impedes our violence, that does more than offer failing offers of peace and beauty.