User:Niek Hilkmann/creativeIndustries: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''I do not believe that we will stay together forever, but when we will meet again, we might still resemble friends and have a nice time. It is a comforting thought that these sort of connections exist and are just waiting to be retouched. It's a shame that most of them are connected to a life that I will | ''I do not believe that we will stay together forever, but when we will meet again, we might still resemble friends and have a nice time. It is a comforting thought that these sort of forlorn connections continue to exist and are just waiting to be retouched. It's a shame that most of them are connected to a life that I will certainly leave in the end.''<br> | ||
It's pretty | This was not a real quotation. It was something I wrote down in my notebook yesterday. I do not know why I wrote it or why I repeat it now. It's pretty disturbing that you can do things without knowing why. To be honest, I am not even sure if I felt an urge to do so. I just did it. Should one follow intuition without having a cognitive justification for it?<br> | ||
This is a question with too many answers. I refuse to relate to any, as should you if you follow this formula. When one situation relates to another (or even a person) this can evoke a pleasurable or even interesting outcome. For instance, such a situation can be 'doing something new' and it can be in connection to 'me'. This is not necessarily enough in connection to 'another person', because 'me' is not a defined object for this subject. Therefore the question is if the relation between the situation and 'me' needs to be defined and understood by an outsider.<br> | |||
When a situation corresponds to another situation without individuality involved it creates a connection that can complete a circle. The connection becomes a complete object in itself. Perhaps this object should also be related to 'someone' to become interesting. For example: Love + Love = LOVE, but Love =Not Love, though Love + Someone can be Art. What the artist perceives should not have an inherent meaning, but should approach the possibility multiple interpretations.<br> | When a situation corresponds to another situation without individuality involved it creates a connection that can complete a circle. The connection becomes a complete object in itself. Perhaps this object should also be related to 'someone' to become interesting. For example: '''Love + Love = LOVE''', but '''Love =Not Love''', though '''Love + Someone can be Art'''. What the artist perceives should not have an inherent meaning, but should approach the possibility of multiple interpretations.<br> | ||
As such, the artist may or may not follow | As such, the artist may or may not follow intuition as long as he or she can relate to the subject of intuition. By presenting the relation of the object and the perceiver it can become a guided object creating value in itself.<br> | ||
Now that we are properly confused, we reread the previous sentences and approach them with the concept of beauty in the mind. | Now that we are properly confused, we reread the previous sentences and approach them with the concept of beauty in the mind.<br> | ||
And then we fall into the abyss where we keep on falling. | |||
Revision as of 10:39, 24 April 2013
I do not believe that we will stay together forever, but when we will meet again, we might still resemble friends and have a nice time. It is a comforting thought that these sort of forlorn connections continue to exist and are just waiting to be retouched. It's a shame that most of them are connected to a life that I will certainly leave in the end.
This was not a real quotation. It was something I wrote down in my notebook yesterday. I do not know why I wrote it or why I repeat it now. It's pretty disturbing that you can do things without knowing why. To be honest, I am not even sure if I felt an urge to do so. I just did it. Should one follow intuition without having a cognitive justification for it?
This is a question with too many answers. I refuse to relate to any, as should you if you follow this formula. When one situation relates to another (or even a person) this can evoke a pleasurable or even interesting outcome. For instance, such a situation can be 'doing something new' and it can be in connection to 'me'. This is not necessarily enough in connection to 'another person', because 'me' is not a defined object for this subject. Therefore the question is if the relation between the situation and 'me' needs to be defined and understood by an outsider.
When a situation corresponds to another situation without individuality involved it creates a connection that can complete a circle. The connection becomes a complete object in itself. Perhaps this object should also be related to 'someone' to become interesting. For example: Love + Love = LOVE, but Love =Not Love, though Love + Someone can be Art. What the artist perceives should not have an inherent meaning, but should approach the possibility of multiple interpretations.
As such, the artist may or may not follow intuition as long as he or she can relate to the subject of intuition. By presenting the relation of the object and the perceiver it can become a guided object creating value in itself.
Now that we are properly confused, we reread the previous sentences and approach them with the concept of beauty in the mind.
And then we fall into the abyss where we keep on falling.