Currents of a Thought Process
January 9th, 2010
“Red Current” » 9″x12″ » watercolor/ink » original available – e-mail to buy
I created this painting during my last show in November. I had a lot on my mind, as usual. And it was hard to focus, as usual. So instead, I focused on my thought process as a whole, instead of individual thoughts running through my head.
This painting is the result. An illustration of my mind and thoughts.
It would be interesting to witness someone else’s thought process, first-hand. Unfortunately, that’s impossible. I can only be aware of my own thought process.
My thoughts and ideas are created by my emotions. I usually don’t tend to think thoughts or ideas in ‘words’ at first. Words become attached to the thoughts sooner or later. Often, only if I need to express my thoughts.
***
I have a love/hate relationship with words. I love and hate the fact that they can mean more than one thing. The titles of my pieces are full of puns and plays on words, which shows how much I love words. What I hate about the ambiguity of words is that they can be misused, abused, and misinterpreted.
I also love and hate the fact that each meaning of a word comes with a set of expectations. Like bait on a fish hook.
Which word can be misused, abused, or misinterpreted? Who decides the expectation? What’s the bait? What gets you hooked?
It depends on an individual’s thought process, which no one has access to but the individual itself.
If you’ve just read all of this, I wonder what you’re thinking.
***
Geez, what the hell was all that?
See, this is what happens when I try to describe the meaning or process behind my work. It goes deeper, and deeper, like a bottomless pit. And it spreads, and flows in many directions, like rivers into oceans.
I think I focus too hard. Currently.
January 9th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
i could tell this painting was deep before i even read your descriptions of how it came to be. congrats, it’s awesome, as always! i love the combination of colors. i love the smoky swirls and i love the burnt edge/torn paper look and how it is a contrast of black and white. and the flying fish are excellent. so much detail and they remind me of koi fish, which i love.
January 11th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Thank you. Yeah, Koi fish are awesome. Most of my pieces are deep, to me. Some just seem to be more obvious than others.
January 15th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Thanks for wondering. We have word-wonder thoughts, too. Often — like frequent flyers on the chemo-electro neural-synapse airline in our heads.
- CABIN ATTENDANT: (irritated to the point of lash-back, voice) Good morning, and, really, thank you so much for flying Neural-Synapse Airways. Due to an empty can of coffee this morning — someone has to buy it, bring it home and make it, RIGHT??!!!??? — we will be flying just ten feet above the ground. So good luck. (mic clicks off)
Or, in a way of seeing things that’s non-metaphorical and not his-storical (this story writer transporting “his” genes), we see the language as a living thing. Again, NOT a metaphor. Actually, factually, indisputably, connecting, evolving, “living.” Just, you know, not living like a cat lives, perched and waiting for a sparrow at the window feeder.
Living, but not biological. A non-carbon-based life form. Unless, of course, you’re using a laser printer to print this out, which would only confuse the point since the printing, marketing, sales and distribution of the words does not involve the words themselves. Just an act of whoring or necrophilia-tizing the word corpses left behind — left behind because flying only ten feet off the ground always ends up flying past and not past something.
Living, but not biological. “Extra-biological,” because, hey, if no one made this shit up, where would the freaking language be? Answer: unconceived. A verb without a stiffy. An idea painting without a cave wall g-spot to put it on.
So words, then, as not mere tools for “Ego Man” to use. Tap-tap-tap, like driving words into idea lumber (two-part simile; like two-part harmony, but with a different tongue kiss).
Words as not “our” tools. We as “their” tools. Because — with either words or images without words — we don’t “make” or “use” the indie life that’s living in our heads. It makes and uses us.
20100115 11:17 Fri (312 words)
January 15th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
zombiedisco, I’m guessing you’re a writer. Just a hunch I’m having here. You make a nice point:
[Words as not “our” tools. We as “their” tools. Because — with either words or images without words — we don’t “make” or “use” the indie life that’s living in our heads. It makes and uses us.]
Thanks. Enjoyed all 312 words of your flow.