@Puffy
Sometimes I have problems understanding how anyone could get anything of value from my posts, realizing that I know so little, but I'm sincerely glad that some of my writings resonate with you
Your life, as you depict it in your post, sounds like something I'd enjoy for myself (depending on what you are reading of course
). Preferably, and I think you will agree with this, I think I'd like for myself a life in which I could spend most of my time developing myself by engaging/interacting with interesting people in person, reading that which interest brings me to, and to do art (once I've solved certain things, I'm sure I'll go back to art (some would perhaps say, however, that I'm already doing it)). Recently, I've been thinking of art widely; Lyra gave me the realization that art is so much more than what I thought it was, or could be. Some days a go, visiting a museum, I got the impression that some artists attempt to articulate, through their art, a similar understanding of what art is. That is, a work of art in which parts of it extends beyond what is custom. For example a picture in which you have in front a physical sculpture of someone looking at it, or a painting of, say, a table in which the table painted is standing in front of the picture as part of the installation. All this, I think, can be interpreted as exploiting the modus operandi of people visiting museums to show that art isn't confined to the narrow boarders of that which we happen to turn our focus in a particular way, but that art can be, or is, everywhere if the gazer wills it to be (assuming they can gestalt-switch (meaning they can change the way in which they experience, or look at an
object). The artists function, if considered in this sense (namely as function), is nothing else than to remind people that life, and non-life, as properly considered, is art. Even that which is considered ugly by most due to their particular way of engaging with it, or interpret it (ha! Interpretation itself is art if it's conscious!). Some will perhaps write this off as a ridiculous over-theoretization (and a mistaken one at that!), but, and I'm glad to be able to say this, I frankly couldn't care less; the idea is kind of beautiful
Anyway, I have considered picking up drawing as well, or more specifically, painting. I like the idea of how one becomes like a God when manifesting will on a canvass. God aside, I would like to paint what I 'see' without the aid of the eyes. It would have several benefits (presumably possible by a skilled painter); realizing complex internal states (at least as much as possible when limited by 2 dimensions), and to remind myself (if I ever wanted to) of said internal states. These reasons are why I'm more tempted to do painting, rather than photography. Painting has the potential to bring to life (that is, into public space, or more generally, into space-time) internality, photo, only as far as choosing a perspective (not something to be played down by any means, however!), otherwise it's entirely external.
