“It is unity that portrays the repetition of educational experiences. Wisdom must be passed in the direction of creation, so as not to end order into chaos. It is unity that then portrays itself in what should not be distorted of either portrait or landscape into something less than recognizable. A face that can be mirrored by a reality or the landscape that were always one’s surroundings should not be mutilated nor burned for the simple sake of the ignorance that is against unity.”– Modern Romanticism
While art can be said to be anything, it is with ease that this could be told. If art, an anything, then it is a deceptive nothingness. If to be “any” could be similar to what is “any” source for perhaps the essay, then it may as well be deception. Any and all, the references to deception, are so in that nothing specific could come by this.
If not any, then to something specific that would be standardized and principled, in its meaning for passage upon a new generation. Ignorance will remain to that new generation, whether if art of portrait or landscape, or whether a face for clarity’s sake or the surroundings not made to be scarred are staying to be ignored. Ignoring importance is ignorance, easing the common person to believe a creation can be anything. To be of anything is to be of deception, not to the specifics that make the standards and principles of a guideline.
Exploration, merely for the sake of itself, leads to unneeded risk-taking that borderlines on the acts of stupidity generated by ignorance. What one had not known had allowed them to cling to the aspect of “any”. If only wanting to be “any”, would be in desire to be nothing. One cannot claim, as an artist either of living flesh or just the common sculpture, to have created something when it a nothingness.
If to believe that the lowest common denominator will be the purport upon art to allow more “inclusiveness”, then to this there is the risk that involves temptation, clinging as well to deception. What tempts youth is to believe the self can be anything. If to creation of the self, then the self is nothing if desired to be anything. Greater inclusiveness begins the temptation that allures youth into the ignorant notion of being catered, when it is being included that causes the loss for education. It is since being educated will not allure those to it who wish to be a product of “anything”. That is due to what is most tempting for a human is being included in an area where education has no premise, because one requires neither discipline nor diligence to be “anything”.
Greater inclusiveness results in an exclusion of education, because to be knowledgeable requires an understanding of these deceptive traits to the task of dividing themselves from them. This narrows down to two differing sides. Upon one, a person would favor or be tempted towards the “any” of themselves, in regards to creation, being upon their own identity. Upon the other, a person would discipline themselves to the specifics, with sameness in regards to creation, though comprehend their identity without the division that is by way of inclusive-styled ignorance.
No manner of creation, pertaining to art, should have its place among ignorance. Since an “anything” will exclude the specifics, there will be generated a lesser form of knowledge. If to be inclusive would mean to include those better able to comprehend a certain train of thought, then it is less to the individual upon them having their own mind. Furthermore, to be inclusive would mean to praise what takes little knowledge, though more of a fundamental grasp of human nature, to submit to the temptations that allure a person towards what is easily understood. If in comparison to a diet, then the ease of understanding is in being tempted to cheat on it. Discipline and diligence is then less the principle to the dieting person, as more the place for what is easily understood is all the inclusiveness.