it is widely held that art is the manifestation of creative expression.
we agree that the motive power behind art is creative expression.

we assert that to express oneself, creatively or otherwise, is an attempt to communicate.
to express oneself in a vacuum, creatively or otherwise, would be futile and a waste of motive power.
thus, we assert that it is widely held that art is a form of communication.

however, we also assert that it is widely held
- that because the motive power of the artist cannot be known to the audience,
- that because the author's intent cannot be completely in the mind of the audience,
a full and complete communication between artist and audience is impossible.
an author can put out before an audience their manifestation of expression
but they are impotent to ensure that their intent is known
and thus unable to ensure that which they intend to communicate will be heard.
conversely, an audience can experience a work of art and know it as a manifestation of expression
but they are impotent to know the intent of that expression
and thus are unable to ensure that they hear the intent of the communication.

we assert that if this second widely held view is true, then the first widely held view is, in fact, impossible.
that if this is true then it stands as the complete impediment to expression of any kind.
art offered into the world with the assumption that it cannot properly communicate itself
is, in fact, not art,
because it is, in fact, not communication -- not creative expression.
it is rubbish.

we are two beings -- separate beings with separate motive powers and intentions.
through our combined efforts to express ourselves completely and to hear one another completely,
through the collaborative creation of this work we have discovered that it is, in fact, possible to communicate completely.
we assert therefore, that if we two beings can know each other's motive power, than our audience can also know it.
we assert that there is no distinction between the communication of two beings to create expression and between an expresser and an audience.
we assert therefore, that art is possible -- that art exists.
we assert therefore, that this work of ours is art.
we assert therefore, that our audience can hear this work as completely as we hear it.

therefore we must also assert that the widely held conclusion that an audience cannot completely know art is the enemy of art.
we must identify the root of this conclusion and we must engage in the appropriate therapy to relieve it.
we must attack this impediment.
this impediment to communication.
this speech impediment.
this lisp.

~~~

if { then } else { do } is now available for your listening pleasure,
thank you for listening.


click here to access links to the music

if you know me,
or have known me,
in real life,
please read this (short) blog post

http://www.jhimm.net/wabi_sabi/?p=161

LJ seems to have disabled the URL mechanism
that i have been using for several years now
as the means by which i convert my filtered friends view
into an RSS feed which i can then view as a cohesive whole.
their FAQ no longer contains links to the technique i was utilizing
and now simply recommends subscribing to each user's LJ page through a reader individually.
the problem with this, of course, is protected entries,
not to mention RSS subscription bloat.

so,
at this point,
i guess i am done with LJ.

if you say something i need to know, be sure to write to me directly.

otherwise,
i'll be posting day to day life on Twitter
(which i believe will get re-posted here en mass)
and my spiritual blog will still be at Wabi Sabi.

bye.

twitter and all the blogs are ablaze with the "scandal"
that the McCain campaign spent $150,000 to dress the Palin family.

so?
do you people not think that all campaigns spend money on wardrobe?
there are,
what,
about eight of them,
including the poor schmuck about to get shot-gunned into marrying in?
considering how -often- they appear in public,
this isn't like they all got one outfit worth $18grand each.

i'd love to see comparable numbers for Obama, Hilary, &c.
i doubt they are much different,
when you consider that they're dressing far fewer people
and you look at the numbers on a per person basis.

campaigns are money sinks.
we knew this, right?

shortly after 9/11/01 it was hip (thankfully briefly) to be pretty anti-muslim.
i suspect with some aspects of our society (thankfully fringe) that's still the case.

but now,
society has swung too far the other way.

file this under
"Christians simply boycotted 'Passion of the Christ', so boycott the game".

for that matter,
Christians find -most- video games offensive for one reason or another.
i don't see anyone jumping to appease them.
in fact,
it is becoming increasingly hip to be actively anti-Christian in pop culture.
(which, while disturbing and personally annoying, i at least understand.
the whole anti-muslim thing never made -any- sense to me.)

if the game developers think that musical artist had value when they hired them
(or licensed their music)
why not demonstrate your convictions by standing behind the artist
as someone with a valid form of artistic expression (which you -paid for-),
and refuse to back down,
and release the game as is?

cops get M4's, i get... nothing

so,
apparently it makes perfect sense for Chicago to violate my 2nd amendment rights
and not permit me to own any gun of any kind,
but in spite of this,
it still necessary for the police to have M4 assault rifles.
great.

i cannot WAIT to move out of this clown car of a city.

why do so many people think that Google Earth violates their privacy?
Google doesn't take the pictures.
Google doesn't pay to have the pictures taken.
Google pays for the use of existing pictures
which were already being taken prior to Google Earth.
you already had no privacy before Google came along.
why are so many people so obsessed with demonizing Google?
i don't think they're saving the world or anything,
but i don't get this bizarre, knee-jerk reaction to data-mining as a business model.
IT stands for Information Technology.
everything is about information.
but information has no value all by itself.
you have to -do- something with it,
and so far Google's doing that better than most people.
so how is this a bad thing?

if i have dozens of email conversations about midi-controllers,
i'm -thrilled- that gmail tells me where to buy them cheaper than i do now.
and since their ad serving system is completely automated,
no one at Google -knows- i want to buy midi-controllers.
no one's looked at the content of my email, no one cares!
they have better things to do.
like driving around -public- streets taking pictures
so that when i want directions to a new restaurant,
i can -see- where i'm going to go!
and this -also- doesn't violate anyone's privacy
because they're -public- roads,
and if you're on them when they snap the pictures,
you're -in public- and -have no privacy- anyway.

i just don't get it.

spent the day driving from mystic, ct
to narragansett, ri (and point judith)
and back again
just to prove to myself i'm not crazy
that the lakefront in Chicago is nothing like a real coastline.
i was right.

my lips taste like salt.
my skin is tight and dry.
the sand in my shoes is not pure, white silica.
i saw shells and rocks,
seagulls the size of shepherds,
fishing trawlers
and coastal bungalows stretching on for miles.

i ate smoked scallops.

if i wasn't so lonely i'd be ecstatic.

if i see one more
"i wasn't going to get into politics this time but..." post
so help me.

why is it that every four years
i have to be so brutally reminded
that even people i know well,
hold near and dear,
know to be well educated and thoughtful
all turn into knee-jerking,
bile spewing,
opinion-and-soundbite over fact shouting
hate machines.

i have friends on both sides.
if you paint "the other" as Evil,
you insult my friends
and you insult me for having them as friends.

you're all wrong,
and it gets proven every four years
when the fruits of your ideas and ideals prove to be hatred.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/technology/21comcast.html


not only are providers now deliberately (checking) and then dropping certain kinds of packets
but now if you actually -use- what you -pay for- expect to get throttled.

i love how everyone's ads are for how shockingly fast their service is
and just how shockingly much crap you can download/upload -constantly-
but in actuality what they're going to do is re-route the bandwidth you paid for
to someone else who ... isn't using it as much?!

WOW.