not enough art

i'm beginning to think that art, by nature, is self destructive.

you create and create and find yourself getting somewhere only to find that somewhere has gone somewhere else. hopefully we recognize this. i think we do far too rarely. how do we tell?

excellent question and i have no idea what the answer is, only pseudo profound statements claiming nonsense ideas to fulfill some ambition of creating an interesting blog post. so as s.k. said of the trip up the tower, stop now, or be lead where you want not to be lead.

creation leads to pseudo-sentience. the creation becomes artifically self important in our minds and only by destroying it time and again do we find what it wants to be. at some point, touch by nature [1] kills more than it creates.

we become what we create. is this good or bad? i don't know. i think, for the self, it is a healthy form of growth. i think, for the created, it damages. it moves from being what it is to being what we are and that divide breaks down and the created becomes the murk in between.

perhaps creation should be done both ways. creation with self projection to find ouselves so that we can move on to creation without to create what wants to be created.

creation of what wants to be with rejection of self to destroy preconcetions and cyclic incestuous self dilluding manifestations of selfish self. to find where we ought to be and not where we are.

lo! hahr! and ak-analleka!

how do we fix it? step back once in a while and destroy it and bring it down to nothing to find where it has gone while we were high on where it was.

alle ist die scheisse.

np: "drowning man," u2

[1] heisenberg. i had to put an academic style citation for sake of absurdity. go drink some nitro glicerine.