a start to some ways to think about how to interact with art and thoughts on selling and buying art. the exchange of art should be an anarchy i wonder
beauty in people like the warmth that arises in hopefullness innermost and the beauty of then and always Sincere involvement regardless of beauty apparent to us.
to wait for the value of a work of art to someday grow is mislead, primarily maybe in three ways. 1. to wait for the value, in monetary terms, of a piece of art to increase is to wait for the ends to the more important means so that the "owner" of the art can enjoy some other end outside of the enjoyment of art for its own sake as the end in itself, not as a means to an end by selling the art to purchase some other end. (but the experience of the aesthetic of the whole-Earth is an end in itself because to experience the whole-Earth is to flow with the flow of creativity of the world in experiencing the aesthetic of the whole-Earth and so way making or finding flow with the Tao of the world.) the means for which the art is ascribed value should be it's aesthetic (as symbolic and physical qualities) experience supplied by it. (but to ascribe such a value arithmetic to a piece of art as if evaluateable, and when thinking about the monetary value of art, we wonder if the value of the art can some how be understood to an ever subjective judge. and even if it is, we wonder at the site of a stack of money pile-able thus piled up and the notion of a substantively valuable piece of art and its equal valuation to the art (almost as if a metaphysical value form of the work of art, thus dissection of the whole-Earth as whole-world, wherein we cannot understand the aesthetic experience of the world or the art or Art of the world at all; or life at all for that matter). we also wonder at the notion of another piece of art exactly as valuable as another. a piece of art being "as creative" is irrelevant. a piece of art being "as valuable" in a sense makes sense in that all is equally an irreplaceable subjectivity but the irreplaceable subjectivity experience of the irreplaceable subjectivity is valuable only according to the diversity of the experience of the experiencer as irreplaceable subjectivity; and it is only the value of the irreplaceable subjectivity's experience. but what about the question of the value of currency as a means to an end? a medium for exchange with which we acquire our ends? what of the dynamic that occurs in the new mind set in American history of the currency as itself an end? what about the notion that one can work for money to buy a painting valued at a certain amount but s/he is not sufficiently self-developed or mature enough to understand the art that s/he is apparently economically mature enough to own? should economic right to art be as good as a mature person's right to a work of art because s/he might more closely interact with it in a more Sincere way? or, should art, obviously flowing in/as the world with all the freedom of the infinite possibility (thus creativity) of the present-ing moment, be allowed to flow in free interaction with every creative irreplaceable-subjectivity as the creativity of the world so creates thus the most natural artistic interaction and understanding that can take place in the world without formal and categorical divisions caused by formal metaphysics, logic, and a currency based economy in general along with a currency based purchasing system of art.) the most Sincere reason why one pays so much for a piece of art (when paying is part of that person's stage of development) is to get (but not possess itself as Sincere whole-Earth creative interaction Sincerely interplaying) the artistic high of aesthetic experience (but this experience is not understandable while attempting to be possessed.) as understood previously and to share that experience with others. to buy a painting, for example, for the purpose of waiting for it to increase in value as if stock in a stock market is to negate the Sincere aesthetic experience at it's near utmost interplay with the experiencer far along and mature in the process AND(BUT) (as the center of the sentence) to through-compose super imposed essence as capitalism (as formal definition as literal versions coming from perceived understanding) is to present the value of Art (as the creative field in general: as the whole-Earth as whole-world creativity thus (irreplaceable subjectivity) involved, so realizing aesthetic as understood previously) as a form of stock itself__ (and perhaps to be seen eventually as nothing more) (and in so doing, confusing and thus perhaps totally forgetting (so erasing the history of art and erasing art and Art as something known to be as visible to the creativity perceiving irreplaceable subjectivities) __the value of art and/or Art as aesthetic and not capitalistic now thus redefined and possibly forgotten as Sincere artistic participation in interplay and thus erasing the perceivability of the understanding of Sincere artistic participation in interplay in the world of creative flow). (is this ununity right?) 2. we cannot take for granted the necessity of the (irreplaceable subjectivities) of the whole-Earth in it's necessary process. the point at which present (present as ongoing gifting) emerged anew to its extent, it developed a dividing line between the forbearing and forth coming organic development of the world; this is the point at which the creativity of the world emerged anew and somewhat definably different. this dividing line marks the boundary between a connection with and thus realization of the flow of the world thus realizing the need to flow with the flow and thus being connected to the natural and naturally creative world. the forthcoming portion after the dividing line progressively increases in disconnection with the natural and naturally creative world. this disconnection with the natural and naturally creative (as aesthetic) world is the first official time in the known history of man that we have become disconnected in such a way. our disconnection with the natural and naturally creative world as aesthetic could be the end of our survival on this planet, not to mention the survival of other irreplaceable subjectivities. (what happens if they really are irreplaceable?)
to wait for the value of a work of art to someday grow is mislead, primarily maybe in three ways. 1. to wait for the value, in monetary terms, of a piece of art to increase is to wait for the ends to the more important means so that the "owner" of the art can enjoy some other end outside of the enjoyment of art for its own sake as the end in itself, not as a means to an end by selling the art to purchase some other end. (but the experience of the aesthetic of the whole-Earth is an end in itself because to experience the whole-Earth is to flow with the flow of creativity of the world in experiencing the aesthetic of the whole-Earth and so way making or finding flow with the Tao of the world.) the means for which the art is ascribed value should be it's aesthetic (as symbolic and physical qualities) experience supplied by it. (but to ascribe such a value arithmetic to a piece of art as if evaluateable, and when thinking about the monetary value of art, we wonder if the value of the art can some how be understood to an ever subjective judge. and even if it is, we wonder at the site of a stack of money pile-able thus piled up and the notion of a substantively valuable piece of art and its equal valuation to the art (almost as if a metaphysical value form of the work of art, thus dissection of the whole-Earth as whole-world, wherein we cannot understand the aesthetic experience of the world or the art or Art of the world at all; or life at all for that matter). we also wonder at the notion of another piece of art exactly as valuable as another. a piece of art being "as creative" is irrelevant. a piece of art being "as valuable" in a sense makes sense in that all is equally an irreplaceable subjectivity but the irreplaceable subjectivity experience of the irreplaceable subjectivity is valuable only according to the diversity of the experience of the experiencer as irreplaceable subjectivity; and it is only the value of the irreplaceable subjectivity's experience. but what about the question of the value of currency as a means to an end? a medium for exchange with which we acquire our ends? what of the dynamic that occurs in the new mind set in American history of the currency as itself an end? what about the notion that one can work for money to buy a painting valued at a certain amount but s/he is not sufficiently self-developed or mature enough to understand the art that s/he is apparently economically mature enough to own? should economic right to art be as good as a mature person's right to a work of art because s/he might more closely interact with it in a more Sincere way? or, should art, obviously flowing in/as the world with all the freedom of the infinite possibility (thus creativity) of the present-ing moment, be allowed to flow in free interaction with every creative irreplaceable-subjectivity as the creativity of the world so creates thus the most natural artistic interaction and understanding that can take place in the world without formal and categorical divisions caused by formal metaphysics, logic, and a currency based economy in general along with a currency based purchasing system of art.) the most Sincere reason why one pays so much for a piece of art (when paying is part of that person's stage of development) is to get (but not possess itself as Sincere whole-Earth creative interaction Sincerely interplaying) the artistic high of aesthetic experience (but this experience is not understandable while attempting to be possessed.) as understood previously and to share that experience with others. to buy a painting, for example, for the purpose of waiting for it to increase in value as if stock in a stock market is to negate the Sincere aesthetic experience at it's near utmost interplay with the experiencer far along and mature in the process AND(BUT) (as the center of the sentence) to through-compose super imposed essence as capitalism (as formal definition as literal versions coming from perceived understanding) is to present the value of Art (as the creative field in general: as the whole-Earth as whole-world creativity thus (irreplaceable subjectivity) involved, so realizing aesthetic as understood previously) as a form of stock itself__ (and perhaps to be seen eventually as nothing more) (and in so doing, confusing and thus perhaps totally forgetting (so erasing the history of art and erasing art and Art as something known to be as visible to the creativity perceiving irreplaceable subjectivities) __the value of art and/or Art as aesthetic and not capitalistic now thus redefined and possibly forgotten as Sincere artistic participation in interplay and thus erasing the perceivability of the understanding of Sincere artistic participation in interplay in the world of creative flow). (is this ununity right?) 2. we cannot take for granted the necessity of the (irreplaceable subjectivities) of the whole-Earth in it's necessary process. the point at which present (present as ongoing gifting) emerged anew to its extent, it developed a dividing line between the forbearing and forth coming organic development of the world; this is the point at which the creativity of the world emerged anew and somewhat definably different. this dividing line marks the boundary between a connection with and thus realization of the flow of the world thus realizing the need to flow with the flow and thus being connected to the natural and naturally creative world. the forthcoming portion after the dividing line progressively increases in disconnection with the natural and naturally creative world. this disconnection with the natural and naturally creative (as aesthetic) world is the first official time in the known history of man that we have become disconnected in such a way. our disconnection with the natural and naturally creative world as aesthetic could be the end of our survival on this planet, not to mention the survival of other irreplaceable subjectivities. (what happens if they really are irreplaceable?)
posted by dude at 10:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home