Artist – Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Of Art, Realism versus the Artistic” – 12/29/2020

“Some might repeat that art should remain as is, and they’d be right, if no artist was ever deceived by the idea that ‘realism’ should take more prominence on the canvas, over their surroundings.”
– Modern Romanticism

Hyper-realism, in art, possesses no “art” of itself, due to that such paintings of such realism attempt to mimic reality. Even a photograph can only become so “realistic” to the point where a limit is soon discovered. This makes the “artistic” become something so unlimited in its diversity. It makes the “realistic” become limited in what can be created from it. In fact, realism is limited to being a singular in style. Realism cannot be diversified.

An artist is the perfection, as a creator to art, though imperfect with what they’ve personally perceived, or understood, can be mimicked or replicated upon the canvas.

Individualism represents the artist, making nothing of itself able to be criticized nor corrected. How can one better their style of art, to even one’s own comprehension to who they are at their core, without all crumbling?

One can only step into another style of art, so that empathy is lived through the artist to understand another walk of life. To reveal the most realism upon the canvas would never compete with neither the photograph, nor the other artist’s hyper-realism upon their own canvas. How can realism compete with realism, if not becoming one entire painting, or one entire depiction?

As an artist steps into another style of art, they jump into another skin, and thus, become not something more, though something else. Their depiction for what is empathized with, soon becomes the portrayal upon the canvas. In this case, the “canvas” represents the repeated process of imperfection, in the same sense as a child is born.

This is an artist’s way of empathizing with something not so realistic, being of others, revealed as distortion upon the canvas. Mimicking something imperfect is a way for an artist to understand all that is possible to be perceived, or taken in direct relation. Though, it is never to the direct relation for the artist, being perfect, as much as it is more for an artist to simply replicate the distortion of what is understood. This is how an artist understands art, as art. It is a way for an artist to mimic what is seen of others, of surroundings, being of people’s imperfections, and their creation’s imperfections. As individualism cannot be corrected, it is then through unification that an artist has another color upon their palette.

And, as an artist gains inspiration from other art, it is all the same. Though, is it ever possible for an artist to become inspired at something depicted as “hyper-realistic” for the canvas?

Even of the world, of creations done by human hands, such are the imperfections than an artist mimics through a variation of styles. Though, what style is perfection? There is none, by that simply mimicking what is realistic, will halt the empathy for any imperfection meant to be repeated. Such only ever dries the cycle of empathy unto art. It is due to perfection being unable to be perceived nor understood, that any hint of it will not allow the empathy from an artist to see any “depth” to such realism.

Philosophy – “Why Certain Sorts Praise Hitler… beyond the Grave” – 12/20/2020

“Why does any artist receive their fame, soon as they’ve escaped this world, through the grave, now dead? It is in us always considering creation, before causation, that we say to even an evil artist, that when they’re dead, they can no longer cause others to be dead. It is to creation, that makes the living person a shocking symptom of truth, because when they die, truth is all to be seen.”
– Modern Romanticism

Art.

Creation.

And, causation.

Art is only ever creation, as creation is from the artist and is also themselves. Upon the death of life, of creation, we see only what was made, by the once-living, by the artist. Sculpted about us in varying intricacies, being only what is able to become seen by remaining life, by the remaining viewers.

Art objectively does not stand for chaos, unless materialism is to the living artist’s motto, and never to the soul of themselves depicted in their work.

Under chaos, art works as numbers, praising the death of others, praising the death of life, of objectivism in truth. By this, art that causes, or speaks for itself on causation, kills originalism by way of the roots. Therefore, art that cites itself on numbers, kills the universal away.

Hitler, having killed, was an artist of the latter sort. Yet, by his death, we see only his very creations. It is by the death of anything, that we see the good of what died, by our remembrances to their once-living selves. We forgive the life that died, knowing our criticism cannot extend to the death of a life to become better, for it is now too late.

Forgiveness acts upon faith, comprehending to life that it will be better, keeping our trust up in that regard. If Hitler is said to be a genius, it was only due to an inevitability of life’s psychological understanding of itself, of life understanding life, and of life comprehending truth. Each thing of truth, is life, is what decays, and soon to become the enemy of chaos. For chaos is against life. Chaos is for death. Chaos is for the decay of truth, into sheer deception, that the garden of Eden might appear autumnal so that everything falls, with beginnings into endings.

We forgive the life that died, inevitably so, that we understand Hitler to have been the evil artist, becoming forgiven for the sake of our awareness to truth. That truth? It is the truth of what remaining life metaphysically pulls from the metaphysical realm, being of goodness, no matter how small. Even of the monster, we pull from memories, never the badness that would equate to chaos or causation. We simply do not remember death, by death. We remember life, by death. Therefore, we do not remember what Hitler caused, though by what he created, simply by recognizing humanity that it was buried under the pressure of its own guilt.

It is there to be known for why we remember life, being the same reason that we remember art. It is that we remember what remains, being of surrounding life, being of the once-living’s existence that still lingers. In this, we grieve even for monsters.

Philosophy – “Why Art should Touch on the Internal, over the External” – 12/6/2020

“There are many ways to look at the world, to perceive through various arrangements the differing colors we behold. Though, when does a person ever look within themselves, to pull out some embedded pain that they rarely wish to see?”
– Modern Romanticism

Of the world, it is in what we have created or caused. Like the world, ourselves show a reflection in a mirror, where we may or may not, or simply not wish to see something too hideous to understand. It is not something we should share love to, for that comes easy. We should share trust to it, for those demons within would become beautiful, when placed upon the canvas, or the page, or anything else, as art.

All hideousness that grows within ourselves, can become the most beautiful spectacles, when released into the expression. For that is how we peacefully empty loads. To make something another person could connect to, extinguishes the burning flame of loneliness. For when we make that kind of art, we are no longer hiding in the darkness of such pain. We have moved ourselves, in the inspiration it took to create it, as we move another person, out of what courage for them it took to look upon it.

There are people who would be proud for their pain, proud for their scars, though these are the sorts who are never able to drop their pride, to release that past into the expression. Into tears, or into a simple artwork, requires no special skill. As it is, love is a talent, making this innate part of ourselves meant to come forth, into the open arms of another individual, for their understanding to it.

Love does not die. Though, trust can. When trust receives the noose, there is distance both from ourselves, then from other people. If art can be that which a person normally does not look upon, due to fear, it can be pure.

Artists will make art based on what is around them. Though, such often enters the realms of the political, the social, and the environmental. Were a human, as an artist, or an artist, as a human, to see within, they’d find something long buried. Looking within, a person can be “deep” with their expression, allowing the embrace to another person, as the viewer or appreciator, to enter a comfort that is, as well, deep. Deep, as to be sunken in the bedsheets after a day’s worth of labor.

Humans hide things, do not reveal their flaws, and conceal their sorrows. We are never beautiful, when we are enclosed. Though, the artist who hides, is not a one, at all. We can make art all about the political, though without creativity nor imagination, involved. Such things, we see every day. Though, when is the day a person will look within, to drag out something they do not wish to see?

It is a coward’s way to follow the word of a politician. It is bravery’s way to follow the word of mouth, as an individual. Having a voice, as an artist, is the only way a person will never separate themselves from another, by means of that external stimuli. They can, in fact, be motivated and inspired by someone to trust, because they’ve closed the gap of their distance to them.

Quote – “The Artist’s Failure” – 12/1/2020

“An artist should accept failure, not make explanations which would translate to excuses. Even an ordinary person, who has failed in their attempt to make something better of themselves, inevitably accepts the failure. Whether to ‘make better’ as a person, or for an artist to better their own skills, there must be acceptance for failure, until success is achieved.”
– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “Why an Artist should not Explain their Work” – 12/1/2020

“Meaning. As a word, it should explain itself.”
– Modern Romanticism

Art has meaning. It has meaning within meaning. It has layers of its own meaning. Each layer descends atop the previous one, just as clothing for a woman might be removed to reveal the beautiful and vulnerable sculpture beneath.

Peel back the layers, and one sees truth. Yet, it should be done, immediately. Why must an artist need to explain meaning? Upon when a viewer becomes confused to the “message” behind a work, why should someone else, even the artist, explain it, to remedy the confusion? If such becomes the case, then the artist has failed is their attempt to make meaning universal. They’ve become among the arrogant of this world, believing their meaning to be “specific” to them, rather than creating art that can connect. For it is only the narcissist who sees their reflection in its specific shape, not ever daring to see another’s.

Art is never narcissistic, never egotistical, never selective upon who is considered to matter, when it connects through what has depth. Of depth, there is meaning. Among everything meaningful, we are each meant to see ourselves, as humans, as all vulnerable, as all bared to the reflection that might be the painted canvas, before us.

Though, if the artist too much sought to make specifics, and did not implement enough meaning so universal, they will indeed attempt to explain their work. Though, such an explanation will only arrive upon a viewer’s noticeable confusion, to the art.

It can only be that this confusion results, or originates, from the innate function of a human brain that is actually questioning the art for why it is not universal. For it must be that, in their confusion, to see the art as not being “universal”, is the same to say the work is not human. As in, to connect, for connection could only ever be artistic and universal.

Why else would a viewer to art question it, if the very act of being confused is not for segregation’s sake? One can easily imagine the artist pulling the confused viewer to a quiet room, to privately explain the work, in greater detail. Though, why couldn’t the art, itself, do the explaining?

To imagine if a Comedian told a terrible joke, to the reacted confusion of their viewers for what was said, might result in further explanation for clarity’s sake. By then, the humor has dried up, and the Comedian has met failure.

“Connection” would be the implement of a Comedian to make their entire audience laugh. If there are those who did not find the Comedian’s jokes to be humorous, to then begin scorning them, it could only be that such listeners are searching for specifics by way of humor. The “specifics” aspect of this, is all to know the difference between a representation of something certain, to a representation of something universal.

Philosophy – “Why Diversity cannot be Forced” – 11/29/2020

“The importance of diversity is in its expression, of language. Yet, can art be forced, without the burnout of the soul? Must extreme measures be taken for the person of their language to force truth forward? Forcing diversity seems to be what makes the torturous interrogator.”
– Modern Romanticism

Forcing truth, to the surface of one’s own esophagus, is to eject diversity without its naturalism.

We are not intimate with ourselves, with what we express, with what we feel, when another means to place us “on the spot”. For those who force diversity are also people who mean to humiliate. They are the psychopaths, the extractors, and those who wish for truth to be regurgitated.

Examples of truth, of all diversity, is to the ideas of it, spoken next for speech’s sake, then made tangible and physical.

We love truth, for we trust it. We cannot love God, for we cannot care for Him. Yet, we can love God’s words, as we are silent in our attentiveness. Though, to Creation so natural as a spawned life from a womb, we cannot force without resorting to a philosophy that pertains to the inhuman. Whether inhuman or psychopathic, the “interrogator mentality” is the abomination meant to be purged without diversity for what kills.

It takes no special instrument to slay, though to extract truth? That requires genius.

Yet, it requires an equal amount of genius, not of the evil and malicious intent, to create truth. It is of example, of Creation, that truth is made. For we do not force it, when it is made, anymore than a mother must force her child out of her, during labor. Anymore than a husband rapes his wife, out of force, to impregnate her, would make the diversity; because, it will not.

Diversity is always a creation, born as an example unto it. Artists do not force it out, anymore than creativity can be turned on like a faucet.

Philosophy – “The Artist and the Politician” – 10/28/2020

“Why should art be a thing of chaos, when it is a thing of order? Is it not a creation, revealing order, opposite from a causation that reveals chaos and disorder? This would mean that all art, of emotions, so disorderly, can only become order when they are confined to their place.”
– Modern Romanticism

There is an imprisonment, so certain for the artist to whatever they create, that it should not be free. From the writer to their page, or the painter who traps their canvas in the frame, nothing of emotions are there to express political ideals. Only logic, and nothing more, should be for the political endeavor. For the artistic endeavor, to free the limited movement of a painting, as emotions to express a political opinion, will cause chaos. To free the sculpture of pure emotion, from being bound to a base, will only cause the chaos that such artistic desires have formed. Formed, for the artistic creation was indeed a creation. It was not an intention for causation, as is the surge of chaos.

The surge of chaos, so much neutered when it is brought to art. For art can only ever be order, when it is bound to its singular imprisonment. When it is never moved, when it is never free, it is art. Art is not free, even when graffiti is limited to a wall, to a surface.

We are artists, when we can create from the chaos that is in our minds. We are those who cause chaos, when we can shout political opinions to the world, in the belief that such emotions, in such verbal language, are free. This is the onset of chaos, objectively so, when we don’t realize that logic is the only endeavor to the political ideal. It is not emotions. For if it were, then no artist upon this world would ever bind neither the sculpture to its base, nor the writing to the page.

Emotions cannot be free for the political opinion or ideal. They can only be expressed, and turned towards the artistic endeavor. This would make the art even confined to the space where it has been branded or placed. It might be the painting trapped in a canvas, as the canvas is trapped in a frame. It might be the musician or theater performer bound to their stage. It is always in the place of the artistic creation, whether from painting, or song, or film, makes the art never free. Once more, if it were free, it would merely result in the chaos that pure emotions, in the art, would cause.

Whoever first said the words, “Art is free”, never understood that art has a place in this world, where the artist is confined. They never understood that the chaos of emotions becomes order, when it is driven into the artistic creation. They never understood that outside of art, pure emotions causes the chaos that is never on the side of creation. They never understood that creation and causation are two opposites, where the former represents order as the latter represents chaos.

Quote – “The Lowering of Standards, upon the Abandonment of Art” – 9/26/2020

“It is in what we call ‘ugliness’ that pertains to a life, close to death. Neglected. Forgotten. Abandoned. We forsake art, the same way we forsake people. We forsake truth, being the stories of people, the same way we believe a rejection of art, is the embrace of progress. It is not. It is only in such a mindset that we leave people behind, who are not needed.
To reject art, is to inevitably lower the standards that would objectively define art. How art is defined, is by understanding it as a love upon life. It is meant to inspire life, to keep it away from death.
Those who abandon art, to embrace progress, are the ones who embrace death, rather than embrace the people meant to be loved. An ‘art world’ will soon be born, out of ugliness, corruption, and consumption when such objective standards are erased. For they could only have been erased, when art has been erased.”
– Modern Romanticism

Philosophy – “As Art and Progress are Unified” – 9/26/2020

“Pragmatism cannot at all survive, in its purist way with survivalist methods, without an artistry that would uplift the hopes of the pauper, rather than lower them.”
– Modern Romanticism

If one cannot understand it in clearness, both the arts and sciences go hand-in-hand. As in, both creativity and progress are always unified. One cannot simply state that to do away with arts, one is left with progress, or left with pragmatism. For to be one with the survivalist approach, is to the sink oneself in the mere living of it. When one lives in survival, one buries themselves in survival. One does not, as art would do, rise out of it.

To understand what the arts do upon life, it is to inspire truth to be formed of it. We live, so that we may not die. For what would be the point in living, if death was upon our doorstep? The human will to survive often comes into contact with the acceptance of inevitable defeat. That is when we embrace those closest to us. As it is, we will embrace those who were never close to us, whether of familial or through friendship, simply because they are a fellow human. We do not wish to die, alone. We deny the end, as long as possible, because the human need to be loved or to be kept inspired, is as strong as death.

If one holds pragmatism in lone importance, then one is leaning themselves towards the most pragmatic thing to do. And, that is, to end something. What is the ending? It is death. For rather than to prolong a thing, which would pertain to the continued existence of life, death comes along as pragmatic. When we call upon God to aid us during a time of desperation, we wish to be lifted. These words have been written everywhere. Love lifts us. Towards where? Towards infinity. We wish to last for as long as possible, before our end arrives.

We are beautiful, and not anymore beautiful than another, unless we have not been loved. As beautiful beings, we desire acceptance and appreciation for talents, for skills, by way of gratitude. In the name of gratitude, art has its calling. The artist who believes they create for themselves, does not. All viewers to art are seeing what has been made, with grateful eyes. Art is there for gratitude’s sake, and as it would lift life through inspiration, becomes the same as a mother who could be grateful for her child’s birth. Her grateful smile is for the gratitude of this successful creation, born from her womb. Creation of art, is creation of life. More creation of art, is made for the continual existence of life, through the inspiration it evokes.

For it is never pragmatic to prolong a life, as it is never pragmatic to prolong suffering. However, through love upon life, one comprehends that through the struggles, unification of understanding between life and death, is meant to be. People are meant to survive. Though, through love or the arts, people can be uplifted to greater realms.

Quote – “As Abstraction is the Relived Disorder” – 8/18/2020

“It is that the art, in the manner of abstraction, must be the disorder relived of, and through, the artist’s mind. If an artist creates, then they replicate what is upon their mind. If what their mind faces, is disorder, then the canvas will be torn apart with the colors. What has been ‘created’, has instead, been discreated. It has been caused. Such an artist will not ever respect the art, when the further damage will be the ‘further artistic implement’. Entropy is the breaking down of the substance, over time. If the artist causes their work’s decay, they are a destroyer. If decay is the mark of the abstraction, then a viewer’s admiration comes off to it as question. For when the abstract artist is enlivened by their viewer’s perplexity, it is merely the reminder, the reliving, of the faults that exist in that artist’s mind.”
– Modern Romanticism

Creation & Causation: A Simple Comprehension of what is Deemed for Protection, versus what is Destroyed – 6/23/2020

For what we love in the world, it was not caused. Destruction is caused, because destruction cannot be created. We do not breed what we wish to dismantle, because we have created it. We have created what we protect, because a creation demands protection. A creation demands protection, unless we have involved causation. For causation is the idea of destroying what has been created, being life. Life is created, of art, of anything with a beating heart. Life moves, so therefore, art is life as life is art.

The only way a life can be interpreted, is through causation. Dissection, that is, which makes life hold meaning only in the protection and preservation of it. Creation, to then create another time, is to repeat the cycle of life.

All life must end, though it is not to mean that life is made to be destroyed. It is, rather, made to be protected. Life, being created, or art that has also been created, must be protected. Do those who disagree side with the idea that their own children must be raped, damaged of innocence, and then killed? They’d have to believe in that, if they do not believe that creation demands protection, while causation is the causing of destruction.

Love creates. Lust burns the creation, in the forging of it, to be solid, physical matter. Though, love remains to overlap the lust, by us knowing that by loving life, it is never mass produced.

All of life, and all of art, must be qualitative, not quantitative. We do not create numbers. We cause numbers, in the divisions from the whole.

Philosophy – “Why Art should Never be Political” – 5/13/2020

Why is it that over the centuries, we have had beautiful art that has touched the viewers, or the listeners, or the readers to a level where they had wept? It is because a common factor of humans is to hide a vulnerability. What had made them weep, was the art connecting to the vulnerability.

Politics is out in the open. There is nothing more open than politics. In fact, the more “open” something is, the less human it is, and the more mass produced and mechanical it is. From people expressing their homosexuality to the open, to those who want another to accept them for their “identity”, the more exposed something is, the less human value it has. Pretty soon, such things are only left with monetary value, and they become used as tools for marketing demographics, and nothing more.

Why is the genius always hailed as the once-in-a-million person to come around? It is because the genius is never mass produced. The genius comprehends things at a level most others would not understand, without writing hundreds of books on their knowledgeable subjects. Without the genius painting a million paintings, the genius feels he or she cannot depict what they mean to say to the world. And even then, it feels empty.

Everything in the open, among everything repeatedly exposed or simply repeated, turns the art world into something based on gain and greed. It objectively loses its touch with humanity.

Again, we, as humans, always hide our fears, our vulnerabilities. But, the art world is objectively meant to convey what another hides away. In that sense, it makes the viewer, the reader, or the listener cry to it. On that human level, it makes them want to embrace the painting, the poem, the music as if it were a real person. They feel as though the emotions in the work have connected to something they’ve forgotten.

Beauty is the revealed truth. Beauty is what art is meant to convey. The truth that is out in the open, is the same as differing the fast food from the gourmet cuisine.

Nature has her paws on all this, and no amount of “advancement” nor “progress” can ever withstand what she controls.