arashithegreater

i just realized when i chose this title that i first might have to define what art is and also what is art; a daunting task in either case. for the first artist Katharine Westphal said "art is whatever we artists say it is" but that makrs the second question moot and it is clearly not  to define what art is or what is art, artist and non-artist , viewer, must engage in an ongoing dialog.  artists must accept that the culture out of which they derive their content and the context within they work has input.  if the work has an intended message, political, it is propaganda, not art.  this does not mean that art cannot be iconoclastic or expres

i dislike emoticons; they're really ineffective as language and if anything avoid direct contact i suppose they are better than Esperanto, but they are more like the guillotine and Robespierre, they contribute to mob rule, are anti-intellectual, prevent any subtlety and deny direct contact and avoid interpretation by being hopelessly without meaning  and in blogs, they are awful however they are useful to the fighting of turf wars - which i find one of the more amusing aspects of deviant site social life.  it seems the only answer to a comment is a puddle of joy, love or fear and loathing on the comment trails. I SUSPECT THERE WILL BE LITT

HERE i am again, looking for a place to be and to bslong] it seems that artists are strangers by nature, seeking to belong, to be accepted at face value, a difficult thing to ask of people in this global village McLuhan and fuller and all of us have built.  a house of glass; maybe, maybe not MEMORIES, DREAMS, REFLECTIIONS  Carl JUNG Talks about archetypes, James Hillman and others continue the study, an artist often lives the work or tries to transition from one mask to another, to welcome the shadow into  the fold and be hospitable to the strangers and try to avoid the dander inherent in the pathways traveled by antis we have been bureau