What is ART? (An answer for a friend)

Re-encountered this old article from a friend of mine in facebook and remembered I wanted to read it properly after a half assed shit of a comment. Time I responded properly with my own perspective on the issue :P.

I'll begin with that quote from Idries Shah that goes like this;

which pretty much sums up the problem of being misled caused by identification. When people use the word 'art' recklessly it becomes an abuse toward the actual entity the word itself represents. And thus it becomes impossible to discern what art is from merely talks and definitions alone. It becomes quite a dilemma for me regarding the Cloud Atlas rating because of this same realization. A realization that I cannot embody what art is versus an actual sensation of whatever I was digesting at that moment that might not be art at all. I can reinterpret it using the words like masterpiece, work of art, sublime but it couldn't be further from the truth in defining the movie itself.

So what is art? The question asks. Well, I'm not entirely sure. I know the word but I have not yet come across an entity that screams at the top of its lung, pierces into my consciousness which allows me to translate unfailingly so that I could utter it aloud, "That's it! That is art!" similar to an image of a cup that translates into me, "Oh, that's a coffee cup." I assumed it could be a problem of perception. Can we still not 'see' art? Can we still not 'feel' art? This is fundamental. The very fact that we do not know art means we cannot speak about art accurately if at all. We were raised into believing that we know things simply if we can 'reason' it out or 'connecting' the dots, through repetition of things, through succession of events. And yet these are mere assumptions and not an understanding of it. We rarely consider that our own tools of perception can be expanded beyond words, beyond sight, beyond definitions and probably one of these tools are better used toward understanding what art really is.

But here we are pretty much trapped in our dogmatic view of art, because we depend so much on  secondary affirmations like, for example, the technical aspects present in the visual context, or the composition of a music piece, or the validation from authorities when they talk about art, or the expression aspect which has no concrete ground whatsoever. This is all the skin of it, and pretty much misleading. Design can be an art but art is not necessarily a design. To 'touch' art directly is knowing art. Pretty much an all encompassing phenomenon.

But where does that leave us with all our bickering about concepts and definition, about what's necessary and not in art when we don't even know the essence of it? Are we merely philosophizing with no intent to actually go out there and experience the knowing of art itself? As far as I observe and experience, art is not mere pretty pictures, it does not necessarily require skill, it does not need to convey ideas, it does not need to be morally correct, portraying cultures and history and so on and so forth. It can be as well, but not necessarily. But art is as real as a coffee cup, and the problem is we cannot see it correctly, we cannot hear it correctly, we are underdeveloped for it, or we are already led astray by fakes masking as artists. We might've seen the glimpse of art somewhere sometime in our lives and it left a big enough impact to haunt us our entire adult life. And we were more than perplexed when we've returned to a more deluded state that does not have the capacity to understand art anymore.

The torrent of ideals gushing involving what art should be and should not be can only serve as noise and nothing more. Where the thoughts of a true artist is collected, the thoughts of a philosopher philosophizing about art will vary greatly because he's merely assuming. Quoth Cloud Atlas, "Truth is singular, it's versions, are mistruths." For the one who has experienced truth, why would he or she be bothered as to the definition of it? Maybe we should reconsider our own insistence when it comes to 'our way' of understanding things via mere assumptions, and see things as they are. Maybe then we can truly understand what art really is.

I'm Dr. Hamfik, thanks for reading.

If one knows truth, one has the obligation to spread truth.

This is to the question of why hide the truth if you already know it? Why remain silent?

As a person who realized that there is a clear friction between his will and the will of others, however partial or illusiory, he will find the need to be discreet in presence of this other will that may very well purge him. The need to be somewhat invisible in the face of adversary becomes a necessity. A person that tries to transmit truth via a sermon or a demonstration might not work if the nature of that 'truth' is beyond words and demonstration. Sometimes a person might know truth but decides to not be vocal about it simply because it cannot be perceived from an incomplete point of view. I invite the reader to be more open as to the method of transmission itself can be beyond measure of our current perception.

A person who is confused turns around and tries to find help from others, his parents, friends,his psychiatrist. Turns around to 'God' via praying and meditation but continually finds nothing. Why is this? He asks. I've been tossed and turned by the people around me, including 'God' but I still feel that everything is wrong about me. Throughout his journey he didn't find any salvation from the outside, he decides to go 'in' to the dark areas unexplored. Uncharted by the books, unseen by others, unspoken by his upbringers and teachers and society. There he sees that there might be hope. He hasn't put things in stone yet, but he ventures anyway.

But his journey will not be approved by the people around him, he will be branded a heretic, blasphemous, satanist, all the bad names society can offer. His parents will disown him, his friends will leave him and he will be an outcast to society. The nature of his undertaking is simply bizarre! This he considers beforehand, and it is only then it becomes apparent that he must be discreet.

The world is a fairly complicated place. I do not agree that once you know something it becomes an overbearing mission to give it out to the world. Or rather, it's more tricky than most would like to put it across. Only an idiot would say that more money means a better life. A more reasonable man would say a reasonable amount of money would be enough to lead a better life. An idiot would say that if you know truth, then show it to us. A reasonable person would demand a reasonable explanation. But we all know that we do not need to justify our sight to a blind man. The blind man must be able to see first to understand!

This we usually miss. A lot of time. It's a real wonder why words of wisdom will only enlighten us to the most obvious of things and yet we have *this* as a world we live in today.

People are easily hurt. And why it's complicated to simply lunge a stake signed truth into their heart is because when people are hurt they retaliate, and truth will not sink. How can we tell to them we don't need this internet, this smartphones, this cars, this house and this.. 'system' in order to live a perfectly healthy and happy life? when people make such a big deal when it comes to politics, economy and technology moving forward? They're even doing it at the cost of destroying their very planet, if not their own self!

Methods like words and actions are a very partial tool, they cannot transmit truth well enough it will pierce through a person eventhough how much they'd want to deny it. But from a certain perspective, it is awfully cruel to enlight truth to an unwilling, not ready person right?

That's why it pays to be discreet toward certain extent. I believe that the nature of a certain kind of communication means it requires a great deal of 'molding', or 'growth', even 'readiness' before it can take stage. From the times of Copernicus to Galileo the church would kill in order to hide the 'truth'. I believe that it's not so different nowadays anyways.... Who knows how many things, that effects our very life and death, our very conviction, our very belief and ... everything about what we define as 'us', is concealed from our knowing?(hint:Zeitgeist Addendum) The prospect of how, maybe if these truths are brought to light in our readiness might very well make us transcend is definitely worth considering.

God does not simply shut a light bulb from His toilet seat.

What if I was born in a bad place? What if I was born without the ability to reason. That for some reason I'm wired differently and I can't fit into society. What if I was born in a place of war? I would have no opportunity to write in this blog simply because I was constantly worried about survival. Maybe I was born without a competent parent to supply my needs for grow. Maybe in a society that's too conservative or a society that's too liberal. Point is what's the point of asking for a perfect origin?

It's not that life is not perfect, but it's the illusion of perfection that needs to be reconsidered. Why is it considered perfect to have a perfect score in exams? Why is it considered an excellence to win at sports and why is it that earning 5 digits at work is considered secured? Why do we keep gauging people at what they do? Why, when someone expressses their guilt or depression we automatically assume that they're at a worse place than us? Why do we keep ridiculing people's stupidity when they fail to reason in the way
society do? In perfection that they create, it becomes impossible to comply. When we consider God as an archetype of perfection we automatically put our own standard of perfection unto Him. What an idiotic approach.

I think it's evil when we judge people based on origin. Along the way we deny their chance of change. An introvert cannot become an extrovert. A person who can't draw was considered as having no talent. The poor gets poorer the richer gets richer. It's too one sided. It's evil in every sense.

I think it's important to keep the options open. I mean, really open. It's important to keep an open ear when the person I see as stupid and consider every word he says and take it seriously. It's important to keep an open mind when the person you love or respect say something, and take a bold step to doubt it. More importantly, it's important to not simply take answers as absolute. If an answer stop the questioning, I believe that it's wrong in a lot of sense.

I believe a good medium is anything that bogs a person's mind, that stirrs him/her deep inside, that makes them think, feel, disturbed, alive. Nowadays I love my nightmares more than my normal happy dreams. When I wake up with sweat all over my body and my heart beating with intensity, to the dream that almost killed me, I felt moved. I felt closer to myself, closer to death, and each and every breath becomes substantial. Yeah, that's the word I'm searching for. A good medium makes you feel substantial.

I believe that this world has everything it has ever need, and in turn it's only up to us to properly use them. Not being used by them. Don't fret over "I hope we have this and that, so we can do this and that." Rather, "How can we use the things within our reach, so we can propel higher?". This way, perfection is not even questioned, it can/ will be created.

Because I do not think that perfection comes from looking back, but toward the future. In the things that we are bound to create. In the things we are bound to find, to realize, to understand, to explore. In that sense, until the end of time, we should drop perfection as we see it now. We would have no idea.

I didn't think the people of the old would think it's impossible that pictures would move and become animation. The people would never thought that big boxes would bring them places far away and certainly they would never dreamt of flying in metal cylinders with metal wings. And of course, internet. And still, what would the future bring? A big unknown. People are trying to predict what the next big thing is based on  statistics of the past, and well, Black Swan.

I'll end this seemingly short, partial artwork of mine with a profound hope for people who still seek an answer toward their suffering in life, that we are doing fine and fine and not. We are at a phase where we worry about the future too much, where we look from a very partial place we call individuality and personality, from a place called culture, from an imperfect system. And we judge too prematurely. But I guess, the future is still out there, and perfection is a fad, and it's too early to feel worried. Even if we do, it's because we haven't done all that we can from where we are, and it's imperative that we stop and look around us and see that everything's still salvageable and doable.

View everything like an artwork

I'll view my writings like my artworks. That's what I have been doing all this time. I was searching, experimenting. I don't have a set principle, that's why I was being so contradictory. I was exploring grounds I'm not familiar with. And with each discovery, my old convictions was erased, or simply said, shifted. Some of them can't be applied to some other grounds. That's it's nature. Its actually that simple.

How can I be so stupid? It's stupid to be held down by principles. It's rigid and inappropriate. Religion, dogmas and even my own 5 senses! It's stupid to think in absolutes. I'll always change according to my surroundings!

I shouldn't feel bad about being a hypocrite because I'm fleeting just like that! It's not worth trying to fixate myself to things I can't associate myself with!

Damn! This is good! I can keep being imperfect and keep exploring new grounds like this! I can keep practising my work and not be held down by associations that I should be this and that! I can be whatever I want! I can draw whatever I want however I want! I can even be rigid if I want to!

Abrupt end!

Raven and Eagle

Been a while. I don't know why I'm still here. It's weird. People around me are flourishing and rising like given crack and it seems to me like I've been given the wrong kind of drug that slows me down instead. Made me feel unconfident and uncomfortable. Reality is fleeting. During one time I'm high as fuck and all the other time I'm as slow as a sloth. One time feeling I can take on the world and a single stone throw cracks the glass made confidence. It's retarded from a lot of perspective. People that made up their mind seems so full of it. But at the same time looks so rigid. People that shifts all the time appear unsettling and chaotic. Where am I? All over the place.

Raven and Eagle. Pride and Opportunity. Hunter and Thief.

Let this be a reminder of why my work and life worths nothing.

Kingdom Heart, Kingdom Mind mov.1

A playful freethinking process

Opening sequence.

The way it works is that I want to lie to myself that I don't need this 'worldly' stuffs, worldly validation and guilty pleasures. Through knowledge I've been made to want to believe that the world will not matter in the end. That the way to ultimate salvation is the ultimate relinquish of one's worldly wants. Just like Buddha, Just like Jesus on a cross and just like every other unknown saints before and after.

The way I want to make it is that I am wrong. If I am wrong it would be much much easier living, pitching in my 9 to 5 and having what little time I have to my guilty pleasures. I don't have to think anymore because everything's already there. Listen to my boss, listen to my girl, listen to my parents, listen to my friend to my pope to my television internet. My opinion is their opinion and their opinion is mine. Complete hive-mindlike thinking. And I play Terran in Starcraft II. And no you can't get to Diamond with just a heartbeat.

Truth to be told I care about all the worldly things just as much as the guy next to me. It's just that I don't care enough to push my finger typing my resume to get a job to get the worldly stuffs. Why is that I don't know. Probably I'm a lazy bum but I know that I'm not that. At least I'm not a lazy bum while I'm doing an artwork or playing video games. But that's what they call a lazy bum in the 'real' world. If so then yes I'm a lazy bum. But that's beside the point. The point is my friend tells me that I don't know myself well enough to truly know what I want. What I now know is that my friend is telling me that. What I make of it is an entirely different thing.

The way it also works is that I'm never just myself alone. There's a lot of me. At one time the 'me' that likes to think will want to think things over and at another time the 'me' that wants to do would only want to do things. The way it got fucked up is that I'm never truly in control of what I want.

But if I want to entertain the suggestion of 'knowing oneself' I might as well ask myself what 'knowing' and 'oneself' means. Knowing is a godly attribute, for it is defined that god is all-knowing. You can't know halfly and call it knowing. But again if I want to entertain the notion of 'human knowing' I'll have to further scrape the perfection of knowing and water it down a lot to the human level, that we can never be god, and thus severely limited in knowledge and thus, I can call myself already knowing enough as a human. Then it is a matter of measuring my knowledge against other humans. Then again, what is knowing in human terms? This gets severely complicated.

Human knowing is severely subjective, we can't compare an artist's knowledge and a scientist's knowledge directly because it is even absurd to think so, they work on different tools. And when society over-generalize people's intellect based on math test scores, it demeans humanity as they speak. When we keep wanting people to work in a certain way, a certain system we might've just killed off thousands of talents unknowingly, because these people might have been working in different systems, that the normal society rejects or ignore. Even as I use the word scientists and artists as a profession, this has already been generalized, because even amongst artists they use different tools to approach a certain subject. What I see then is that, we should just drop the label and see us just what our original label is, a human.

But what is a human? Even as I drop the labels I am still faced with a puzzling dilemma which is the definition of human itself. Because of the lack of clarity on my part, for now, I like to view humans as a perception tool. I am what I am able to perceive. The ability to name/define things, to conceptualize, to assume, to imagine, to connect to the unknown. Humans exist as an idea, for we realize ideas. We are Santa and the fairy godmother and Genie in a bottle ourselves. Only we don't grant wishes with a single wave of a finger, that'd be godly. We are Santa without all his magic reindeers, but we can invent stuffs. It might be the reason why we are interested in knowledge and art and build stuffs.

So what then, is knowing linked towards perception? I can only know what I can perceive. And going by that can you call a person who cannot perceive the same as 'not knowing'? I guess it fits.

Then finally I can move to the next question in the 'knowing oneself' semi-conundrum I created. What is 'oneself'? Specifically, what is 'me'? What is I?

For one, I am human. But what kind of human am I? Again, because I lack in clarity, I view myself in terms of my individuality. Individuality is what separates me as a human and other humans and things and animals. Individuality is another way of saying "I am different than you." This way, I have established what is me, as an individual.

But the concept of individuality itself does not stop there. If I take the definition of 'knowing' as 'perceiving' like earlier, I can say that knowing myself is only limited towards perception. And thus, individuality itself gets broader with the ability of perception.

Suppose I say, that I am part of an organization that exists carrying the slogan "Justice through killing Muslims" would I have separated myself from another organization that carries a different 'justice'? If so, then my organization itself has become an individual of its own. If I am a part of a band then that band is an individual. If I am a part of a household then the family exists as an individual. This, I realize, is the forming of new individualities. And also here, the line of 'me' starts to blur.

I realized that I'm no longer limited to just this bag of meat, for I extend even into the vastness of this chaotic misfortune that troubles the supposedly rational mind. This place where my rationality no longer thrives, but compromised thoroughly. I exist, as a tool. This bag of meat, my memories, my emotions, my mind, my beliefs exists, as a mere tool, for the benefit of something else. Here, free will no longer exists, or rather, free will only exist by consent of the higher power.

God.

I guess in the grand scale I really do exist for God.

Then if God exist, then I might not be able to perceive him yet. And thus, I would say that no one knew God, unless he himself, as a human, can be God himself.

I could be wrong.

I could be wrong. Haha.

But as far as the semi-conundrum goes, I have, triumphantly, if ever playfully, answered my own question. As far as my own perception of reality goes, and to what extent I can perceive as being 'me', I can finally work toward what I want. As long as my own perception remains unmoving, I would do what I believe as important, until proven wrong, I would not be in sin. Because, how can there be sin in ignorance?