“I would be much more interested in the manner that you created this than the color or design of it.

” I am sure that I couldn't remember exactly how I came to this exact image and, in fact, this is by design. When working with images I start with some image, usually an image not original with me, and transform it, with whatever random program I have hanging around at the time, until I get something that moves me in through an instinctive aesthetic. Quite often I get side tracked on some path that does not seem to be leading to anything that I like and those attempts are deleted. Two or more separate images, created as above, are sometimes combined when aiming for a specific effect. It is often impossible to recognize the initial images in the final product, as they have disappeared in the early stages of the transformation. The name of the work can sometimes play a part as a guide in the final piece, specifically in deciding which random pieces to combine. The picture that I sent you was made in this way. Once upon a time I was preparing scenery flats for a play that I was working on. This involved painting muslin stretched over large wooden frames, using white paint for priming walls. So there I was painting what looked like large canvas white, when behind me I heard my

high school art teacher say, she knew of my lack of artistic talent. “I'm glad to see you're using your artistic talent.” Well, it seemed to me that the only way to save face was to actually name these huge white canvas. The first, the one I was working on at the time was called “Arctic Whiteout.” Afterwards I became more creative – and political – following with “Columbus contemplates Urban Renewal in the New World” and “Malcolm X contemplates his Personal Nightmare.” A discussion with an artist later convinced me that I had become an artist by the simple expedient of naming these large white canvases – it's a Postmodern thing. I call my technique “Digital Readymade,” referencing first it's digital nature and second because I start with “readymade” photos. The name is also a reference to Duchamp's Readymade Art. As I stated earlier, it is my purpose that I lose track of the process so that I can't retrace my steps, making each work as unique as possible. My “Art” forgets in progenitors – that's the way I like it. I have developed this method on my own, without guidance from others. I have not done any “Digital Readymades” lately, as I have lost all access to the software that I had been using. I have obtained some new software, but I struggle with learning it's use and so The Digital Readymade era may be over.

“Below is something I wrote some time ago. Tell me what are your thoughts. And below that something you might add to if you will.” I have taken the liberty of editing your

first writing, rather than just comment on it – this was not my original intent, but I am compulsive about editing. (By the way, I think that you did get the order right.)

● ●

When an event is predicted and it doesn't occur: it is a mistake, when nothing occurs, or a snafu, when something else occurs. Either way it is probably a disappointment (negative), but could equally be seen as a surprising discovery or a miracle (positive). When an event is predicted and it occurs, it is an outcome or a proof – this is the only one that provides security (neither negative, no positive). When an event isn't predicted and it doesn't occur, it is ignorance (negative) or mystery (positive). This is the place of greatness. humans, are not tolerant of a world that is exclusively “boring” or “exciting.” Aristotle was correct with his Doctrine of the Mean; we are happiest in a life that balances boredom with excitement and unhappy if this balance is missing. Simple, except that two individuals, as a rule, do not seem to agree on just what exactly constitutes a balance between boredom and excitement and in this disagreement the individual with a low tolerance for “excitement” is likely to be the loser. I call your attention to the following Box.

It is in human nature that we quickly become habituated to the “same old, same old,” noticing only situations like the first point. Therefore, to our perceptions, there is no difference between the “same old, same old” and ignorance of that which might have happened, but didn't – blind is blind. This means is that although the second and third points seem different, pragmatically they are the same. For the remainder of my comments, I will refer to the first point as “excitement,” and the second and third points as, collectively, “boredom.” Now it should be pointed out that we, as

From Representation and Change by Francis Heylighen These examples, and their underlying ideas, that I have sketched, point to a world view which is radically different from that of Parmenides or Newton. In this world view nothing is permanent, everything is changing and the closer you look at it, the more it appears to change. This world view may be frightening to many people. It seems that everything is confused, unpredictable, uncontrollable, that nothing can be trusted anymore. That a great amount of change in the life of an individual can lead to feelings of inadequacy or anxiety, to stress and hence to all kinds of mental and physical illness, is well-established. On the social level, this phenomenon can lead to a generalized pessimism, to a crisis of belief and values, to a mentality which is expressed by the slogan: “No future.”

“The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. (Judgment on the glass. Seeing the glass as the standard.) I have always said that it is the wrong size glass. (This is an improvement (?) as I have begun to see the liquid as the standard.) Yet I have come to the conclusion that the focus of these observations can change. Is saying that there is not enough liquid (Does this still see the glass as a standard.) the

same as saying the glass is half empty or full the same? (One would not say that there is too much liquid unless you spill the liquid on the table, or there is an outside need for the glass, say to plant a seed in.) The optimist and pessimist are saying something about the glass. (Actually, so am I but using the liquid as the measure, not the glass.) But saying something about the liquid is a whole new perspective as it observes the situation.”

1. HALF FULL: An optimist judges the liquid from the perspective of the glass. 2. HALF EMPTY: A pessimist judges the liquid from the perspective of the glass. 3. WRONG SIZED GLASS: A pragmatist judges the glass from the perspective of the liquid. 4. GLASS TOO BIG: A _____ judges the glass from the perspective of the glass. 5. NOT ENOUGH LIQUID: A _____ judges the liquid … 6. TOO MUCH LIQUID: A practical person who has another use for the glass. “Other observations???” I find the “half-full/half-empty” dichotomy to be hackneyed and a little bit uninteresting. (Perhaps I would like it better if not for its use by the Neurotically Optimistic against all Established Pessimists.) I find the following quote from James Branch Cabell to be much more interesting and thought provoking: “The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true.” What's the difference between “wrong sized glass” and “Glass two big”? It is only when “our cup runneth over” that they would differ and this takes us too far astray from the meaning of the exercise. A pragmatist believes that “a difference that makes no difference is no difference” (James) and so would say that this “halffull/half-empty” dichotomy was just a difference in words and actually means the same thing. The Spoon Boy, in The Matrix, would say “You must realize that there is no glass,” while a Zen Master would pick up the glass and drink. I am sure that “reality,” whatever that is, is closer akin to the pragmatist, Spoon Boy and the Zen Master, in that order. Are we sure that we gain by amplifying a phrase whose power depends on its pithiness? Are we not belaboring what is essentially a one line joke more deserving of a rim shot? I'm afraid that I have been no help here!

“There are many ways in which the thing I am trying in vain to say may be tried in vain to be said.” -Samuel Beckett

Final Thoughts

One must never forget that Language is, at best, of the nature of a “spice” or a “perfume”; it does not change the nature of reality but instead attempts to make Reality more palatable. Any attempt made to heal our language fails because the real subject matter of language is itself.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful