These are some entries clipped from my ‘document of thoughts’, aka Journal. When written
they were not intended to be read by anyone else, and as such may be slightly self-righteous,
discordant, and repetitive. Some of the thoughts are also unfinished or contradictory, which as
it happens, is the fate of most thoughts, so I am sure the reader will forgive this rather venial


John Richardson on Rauschenberg:
“the only artist of our time who continues to address major themes of worldwide concern
without bombast or cant, or aesthetic or political agenda.”
I am of the opinion that not everything is political. There is a neo-marxist trope that everything
is political, and that even one’s silence is political. Perhaps this is because I come from a
country which so notoriously defends the right to not take sides, or perhaps it is because of my
inherent gullibility which I have so often had to confront. I believe that a person may be
political, but their art cannot be. However, I realize now, that it is possible I have suffused my
art with an aesthetic agenda. I am questioning this agenda by my step towards


So, Just as Proust describes memory in a passage about how a tea-dipped madeleine lead him
to search for a memory long lost, my books on paintings do the same. The taste suggests the
memory, but it is so hard to grasp because they are different medium. So in the same way, the
books are different visual objects which when seen as a part of a painting spark a search for
something associated, but long lost. It is like trying to remember an image by taste, or a
conversation by a smell. They oppose each other somehow.


Holy shit… I just nailed books to paintings. I did not crucify them. When the first nail
punctured the first book my heart raced. I prayed because I did not know whether I had done
the right or wrong thing. In fact the idea that I did something wrong was something which I
have inherited at once from culture, and also from my younger years. I remember making a
secret compartment out of an old edition of Brothers Karamazov which belonged to my great
grandmother. I stuck all the pages together and dug out a secret compartment. When I was
found out I was naturally punished and admonished. The greatest punishment, however was
my mother’s sentimentality. I had destroyed something which had been gifted her and had
through the alchemy of giving had become important. I had destroyed something she had loved.
I had destroyed a portal to her past. The shame therefrom was more painful than any vitriol
directed at me for the mere wrongdoing of destroying a book. I remember another time I felt
this way, I had criticized a rather unoriginal but inoffensive painting which leant against the
wall of the sitting room… After grossly exaggerating my dislike of the painting, my mother
told me that it had been her mother (my grandmother) who had painted the painting. Again, it
was not guilt, but shame which filled me. Shame because I had been telling the truth. It was
not a good painting… And, in the other instance, I had done something creative and good. The
fact that the pursuit of truth could lead to hurting the most beloved person in my world, my
mother, was a feeling so overbearing and disgusting that I only wanted to come out of my skin
and away from my soul. Now again, I have done something in pursuit of truth, and I am filled
with the fear that I will be misunderstood; that my actions will be seen as careless or
unintentional, or anarchic.
A fear still grips me as I hear folks pacing the studio. I am racing against time to figure out
what the hell these paintings mean. I feel an incoming attack.
So, the books are nailed to the doors.
A book on Brecht by one Martin Esslin, A book on Ruskin by one Collingwood, and a
collection of Essays by Bernard Shaw.
I selected these books this morning. My intention was to approach from a more aesthetic point
of view than a critical one. I have not read any of these books, and that is the point. The
difference between painting and prose is that one can see a painting in an instance,
whereas a text takes great cognitive effort to read. One must give more to a text in order
to receive its ‘art’, whereas a painting is more magnanimous. I intended these books to
become part of a painting. This requires a transmutation of the object in all its utility and
functionality into an aesthetic object.
However, I intend not to rob any materials of their essence. That is to say, nothing in these
paintings is pretending to be something else. The pipe is still a pipe (through which paint has
made marks). The prop doors are still prop doors, the fabric is still fabric. Initially, I had created
a pipe which illustrated silicone pouring in a rather neo-pop-fashion, however its cowardly,
phony, and imitative aura detracted from the painting. I covered it with coloured silicone, which
again, is not trying to hide its nature. So when I chose the books I was going to nail to the
paintings I knew that I could not hide their nature. Since their nature contradicts the painting,
this presents a dichotomic challenge. A book is about what is inside, but these paintings are
about what is outside. I faced the fact that If I were to merely choose the books based on
their looks, they would lose too much of their essence. When one would look at the painting
the books would glare at one without saying anything. They would become pop. They would
lose their nature. Instead I treated the books as representative paintings. Just like seeing a
painting, one reads the title or author of a book and knows vaguely of its content. The viewer
of these paintings will usually not have read the books, but either by erudition, or by google,
will know the big names and be able to understand the cultural trimmings each book presents.
Because the books become part of the painting (objects of paintings), there is only one
intelligent way to see them. One does not look at them as purely aesthetic objects, paying no
attention to their titles, because that would be to lie to oneself. One also does not see them only
as their respective content, because they are no longer books to read, but painting objects. The
only way to see them without falling into contradiction or nihilism is as representations.
One reads the titles and allows them to chime just as one would read a word in a neoexpressionist painting, or a figure in a renaissance painting. Some viewers may have more
connotations to that word, just as some viewers may know the names of the figures painted by
the old masters. It is thus that Martin Esslin and W.G. Collingwood become almost irrelevant,
because of the change in the way the book is treated. I am treating books as representations.
(This reminds me of an interview with the artist Charles Gaines, who in his latest series of
mathematically created paintings says that he is treating representation as abstraction, ‘a crazy
Let us now address form. The connotations of crucifixion and of burning books come to mind.
Does the form speak louder than anything? Yes. The fact that a book is nailed to the door
speaks louder than whichever author it may be.
Why? Because discovering new forms is paramount. It changes not only art history, but it
changes the way we see. The greater our knowledge of the artistic realm of forms, the closer
we are to truth.
If I am criticized as evil and in sin, then I will say this. In England, in medieval times the
practice of certain medicine was critizised based on its abrasion of the cultural norms of the
church, which proposed prayer and bleeding to be the most effective treatments for curing
ailments. This is scientifically quite untrue, but the point is that if one dogmatizes culture to
such an extent that one does not allow for the exploration and search for truth the live and
breathe, one is acting immorally.
These paintings have an air of revolution about them. There is a lot going on. Does the book
make everything else irrelevant? No, but it changes the dynamic of the painting. It zooms
everything out. They become meta.
As to the criticism that it is immoral to ‘destroy’ books. One must realize that this painting
comments on the book as a cultural object. Both crucified, used as decoration, and dying. It is
almost vulgar to put in to words the idea that texts are no longer chiefly kept in books,
but rather in binary code and digital form. The vulgarity of this idea comes from the fact
that it is such a blatant and obvious conclusion to draw, and once drawn, may give the
viewer a false sense of knowing. Yes, this painting speaks to that idea, but that is by no
means what the painting is wholly about. It is evidently about so much more.
Why Ruskin, Brecht and Shaw? In selecting the books I did not want to use fiction books,
which are: pieces of art, phenomenological, and portals into other worlds. I chose non-fiction
books, all of which were by or about people who were in the arts, and alongside their other
areas of interest, were critics and theorists of art. It was important to me that they had a
resonance with each-other, and I treated the process like a process of curation. I also did not
want to say anything solely political or obvious, so I did not use, say: Stalin, Marx, Trump, or
Biden. Nailing these books would change the way the viewer understood the action of nailing.
I am not crucifying any theorist or their ideas. I am not in favor of some fascist destruction of
books. In order to avoid being misunderstood I chose theorists within the field of art, who all
had differing opinions, so one would not think that I am merely crucifying ideas I dislike. One
could think that I am crucifying art critics generally. I am not. My artistic actions are not
illustrative of any thought.
This leaves me with the ever-present problem which I am nagged about: What does it mean?
What is so frustrating is that this is not the wrong question to ask. It is merely directed at the
wrong person. I am in no position to transcribe my art into a simple ideological framework
which may be well digested and thus easily well-graded. All I can do is show some of my
thought process. It is obviously the case the one is more vociferous in defending what one
thinks one understands than what one does not, so truth may be at the is at the mercy of will.


Creativity seems to be twofold. Firstly, it can be ‘on demand’, so If there is a problem, one
thinks of a creative solution. I have this type of creativity. Everything in my life can be set up
well, I find creative solutions. Then there is artistic creativity. That is more of an experimental,
discovery process.
It is not bound by utility. It is a creativity which one is driven by? Aesthetics? Randomness?
Now let us take an example of a system. The way this country is run. They way laws are passed,
they go through a seat of power, the crown, which is linked by paradox. Parliament cannot pass
a law without it being approved by her majesty, and her majesty is not in practice allowed to
edcline to pass a law. What is left? The system. The Queen is a centre through which power
flows. Her position is not itself powerful. This is an example of an inherited system. What is
another example of such a trace of a system? How exams are set in schools? How one is tested?
Separate thought:
Money and art. Art since it became subjective, is not more so measured by what it fetches at a
market. It is easy to say that a Rothko is good because it fetches a lot of money at market. Is
art which is sold at high price necessarily good art? One can manipulate price because the
market is not free, and prices are manipulated. This is mainly due to English auction method,
which can hike prices artificially high. Fundamentally behind this is a group of people who
move money around and generate new figures based on favours of power and relationship. So,
does the art have to be good? Do they buy what the critics like? Are the critics, therefore
important? I think original form is good. At least something which is not boring, and is new
and original. Something which is at once provocative and beautiful. But not provocative for its
own sake. Only provocative in service of truth.


So, I have my three doors. I also have two more weeks until assessment. The question, I guess
is where do I go from here? Are they finished? Are they not.
I am not particularly happy with the glass and silicone paintings. I will put them in the corridor
at the end…
Make things less biulderly.
Similar to Kant’s idea that the only good thing is a good will, in art the intention matters.
If I attach wire and white paint to the doors with intention of illustrating that the paint came
from behind, this is one layer removed from truth. In the platonic sense, it is imitation of form.
However, if I do it because that is the gesture I feel aesthetically called to make, then that is
fine. The art is not about the ideas, it is about divinity
The same goes for the wooden sculpture support. If I paint it with the intention of covering the
ugly wood, that is bad, if on the other hand, my wanting to paint it comes from divine
inspiration or aesthetic judgement, then I ought to do it.
I reality I can look at my paintings binarily, is it finished or is it not. If not, then work on it.
That is it. I won’t be able to think of what to do before I do it anyway… Or will I?
I realise really realistically, that the current judgers of my art are just clueless. That is fine. But
believing big lies seems to be the norm around here. Everyone believes that because of their
power they also have competence. Like Nietzsche said: In individuals, insanity is rare; but in
groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule……
They muddy the water to make it seem deep.
I am getting more and more precise about what I think is right, and what words I use, what I
do, what I do artistically, ect.


Acknowledgement, again of how quickly I churn work out.
Her: on my doors, as ever, trying to foist a framework of already known and boring theory onto
my doors. No, door’s function is not particularly relevant, perhaps this is because they were
props and don’t have the mechanism of closing which doors generally have. The fact that I
poured the liquid through the thing, it is not trying to pretend to be something else. Like the
silicone. The silicone is designed, the white paint is poured (squirted).
Thought: the grading criteria necessarily cannot acknowledge good art. That means that if you
get an a+ according to the criteria, the work will be unoriginal. This is because the criteria
demands clear references, conceptual development which can be understood by those reading.
I make the work. I may have the ability if time moves on to decipher what I am saying in words
too, however that is not my job. So if the work is any good it will not be an imitation of
something which has come before, and thus no pre-existing theory will be applicable to
“explain” the art and what it says. This being the case, there will be a lack of solid ‘conceptual
development’ (in reality there will be an abundance of it, but for it to be articulable or
comprehensible will take time).
Technical skill not measurable if the outcome is not determined. That is to say, a tool is
only as good as its ability to craft what it needs to craft. To judge this efficacy, we must know
what we seek to craft. A shovel is a perfectly good tool for digging a hole, but if its aim is to
break ice, it is not a good tool. This applies, also with a person’s technical ability as judged by
the criteria. If I know a mason seeks to carve and chisel perfectly cubed stone, I can judge the
jagged stone he makes as bad, and thus I can know that his craftmanship is not good. By
analogy, how can my technical ability be judged if you know not what I make? If the course
were, that I have to paint a realistic portrait, and you judge me on this, my technical ability
could be judged. I could concede that if we were given a rigid definition of what art is, you
would have some chance of being able to judge my technical ability. However, even those
folks, are not presumptuous enough to do such a thing as define what art is.
If the grading criteria is followed honestly, by those grading, it means that if you get an a+ on
everything, your work is necessarily unoriginal. If work is unoriginal it is as far as I can see
without lengthy Socratic dialog, bad.
Rejoice, then at not getting an a+. Does that mean a d is good? Obviously not. I would even
suppose that 95% of the work under an A is indeed bad. Forsooth, the grading criteria is a
fantastic tool to measure how good mediocre work is. If nothing is good, the criteria can tell
you on a scale from shit to fucking shit, how bad it is. But this is like judging health by BMI.
Yes, it is roughly effective when used of epidemiological scale. But within a small group it
bares no more relevance to health than does shoe size.
However, what is the use in using such criteria?. It gives one a structure. Perhaps it nourishes
the seed of faith, and has the potential to fuel ambition. It may be only useful because it protects
us who are in this institution from the real world. Its virtues are that there are lots of young
people in a studio, that means one can dispense with any grading, perhaps Rudolf Steiner was
on to something. If the benefit is critical thinking, then lica200 is good.
Anyway, back to those, and others who have seen the work and instantly tried to put their
framework of the world onto it, they try to make sense of it saying “oh I see it’s about surfaces”
or it’s about the materiality, or the door as a portal.
Why doors you ask? What does it mean you ask?
Does one ask Chet Baker why he played that note? No. Why are we so much more in tune with
our musical aesthetic appreciation than our visual artistic aesthetic appreciation?
With Chet, you listen, and then you might listen again. Fuck it light a joint and listen yet again,
you’ll find your answer in the music.
So I beseech you, look at my work, and if you find your theories and thoughts inadequate, sit
down, chill, and look. Fuck it, light one up and look at my work, maybe you’ll be struck by
something, and you’ll not be able to explain it when you’re sober, because you’ve got to feel
it. You’ve got to really dig it.
Lastly, I think again about why I wanted to write, “: it’s good that I don’t just conform to what
is expected of me. That I do what I think is right and good. They also said that I ought to really
consider how I would display them. Imagine: How would you display them if they were in the
Essentially they said, you’re doing what you’re doing, and that’s good, good job for not
listening to the bullshit, although she will no doubt be careful how much praise she gives, for
encouraging someone who has a will of their own can be perilous to those who lie in the
comfort of the systems deemed ‘good enough.’
They went on to say that I know clearly what the work is not about. I said that defining
something is hard. I asked if she got that from me or the work, they said the work. But perhaps
only because that was the right answer.
When I explained that it is easy to foist thoughts onto things, and associate ones framework
onto a work, to try and fit it in neatly, knowing deep down that it does not fit in. One has merely
silenced it for a while. They said that maybe that is what the work is about. I said no, that just
because that is something which the work gives off does not mean that that is what the work is
The reason for writing about this conversation is that dialog has proven invaluable in its ability
to distill truth. Especially, when that dialog on written down, for then it does not merely fade
into the ruins of time, leaving behind only its conclusion, and the assumption that that
conclusion is self-evident. Assuming things as self-evident is at the root of all disagreement,
and binaries in general.


Thinking from the outside instead of from the inside, about painting. Instead of taking
something which exists and expanding on it, they take their frameworks and try to fit that thing
into their frameworks.
I am concentrated on the realm of forms


I think one tends too often to like the familiar. I like the unfamiliar. Trees and houses were not
so distorted before van Gogh. We create ways of seeing things, which then lead to invention.
Star wars first, then Elon musk. That is why when making fiction it is important to make good
fiction. That is to say the characters are alive, instead of ideological fiction in which the
characters are dead mouthpieces. Then we can learn what is right and wrong and what we
should and shouldn’t invent. Like 1984. Imagine that the book was written saying that
controlling language was a good thing. The fact that it was a bad thing was understood because
it was a good book. Therefore our collective invisible hand does not stray towards that kind of
world. Or if we do, we recall 1984 and stray away. It even provides a reference. This is why
creation of forms as in fiction and art must be good. The philosophers then translate it for the
more analytical, and then pop philosophers, then mass-media, then cultural dogma. It is a
trickle down system. Or perhaps more like a epidemic with a tipping point, like Malcolm
Gladwell suggests.
By this argument it is clear that one ought not to censor art on any moral grounds, if it talks
about rape or it talks about pedophilia ect. If it is good it should survive and not be censored.
That is to say if the form is good and it is beautiful and fine art. You may then say, we must
censor and destroy the bad art. And you are right. But on whom does this job befall? Ultimately
it is humanity as a whole.
However let us look at language. Many words are created and many words fall away. But it is
not through censorship, but through a collective acknowledgement that we no longer have use
for this word. Words are invented for new phenomena, such as internet or computer; or the
acknowledgement of new phenomena, such as queer. So art is made by artists, and only artists
can destroy their own work. They have more right to create one than to destroy one. Giacometti
story for example.
Ultimately, however it is the people who love art who decide what survives. The gallerists and
dealers and collector who most of them at least, do their best to know what good art is, and
then they see it, they try to let it live on and survive. It is in art’s nature to die, and so like
raising a child who will die, one hopes to extend its life and make it better, so, it will ultimately
exceed their own life, or grasp.
Let us think about the categorical imperative now in terms of artists destroying ones’ own art.
If all artists destroyed all their art then it might not be good. It is by logic then that an artist can
create whatever he wants. Is it then morally bad for him to destroy something? Does the artist
know what is good or bad?
I think that an artist necessarily knows what good art is and what bad art is. If they have no
curatorial taste or sense of quality or what is good or bad and why, then they cannot produce
good art other than by random. They develop right opinion, as opposed to knowledge.
Either way it is an artist’s responsibility to create good art, and to not let his bad stuff exist. He
generally knows better than the curator, but he does not know better than collective human
decision in the long term. Again one can se that is a Smithian invisible hand, or a Jungian
collective unconscious which makes these decisions.
Back to my art. Hard to articulate.
So, number one is keep moving forward, keep creating, keep taking leaps of faith.
I also need to keep thinking, this process of creation will help me think about why art is created,
and what type of art to create ect.
I guess I can hope I will be able to go to nyc this summer, and if not now, then I can make it
happen after grad.
I like the first principle method.
I would like to see a system which has lots of artists producing loads of work, like apprentices,
and then that work going on the walls of people. Musk thought from first principles, this is
what a battery needs. The earth has this stuff, let me get it. Why? Because of existential crises.
How should one spend ones time and resources? Making good art, educating the young through
Socratic questioning? Spending time alone? Starting a cult. Perhaps one where you take a vow
of solitude for 10 days for your first belt. Ect. You think. If one did this, one should write about
it so that those texts can then be disseminated throughout the world. One must then try
disseminating through social media too. What has helped me? Education, like a university.
What is wrong with the university? Solitude, following will and intuition, cult. Being able to
do all the silly shit like clubbing, drugs, and drunk blackouts, burglaries ect. Very young. I
grew out of that shit.
Perhaps for art I should intuitively select materials then take massive leaps of faith with no idea
what will turn out. So step one is get materials.
What will also be handy? Financial education, to an extent I have one. But only a limited
My conclusion of the how to gain prosperity is not merely to play the markets, but to produce
something which people want, and get money for it. It is, when one looks at the capitalist
economy from a zoomed out perspective, the only smart thing to do in the long run. Spending
one’s life investing and moving money around seems according to the categorical imperative
not to be the best way to do things. Manufacturing, I believe in. Physical art, I believe in. I also
want to have a happy family raise kids ect. But I want to secure being a great artist before or
during that. By secure, I mean burn up my energy and myself, give it all, my life can be a
sacrifice to that. It seems the only thing which is worth it, and which I can do without being
utterly disgusted with myself.
I like being around smart people with whom I can converse. I Like being around hard working
I think the biggest thing about what I have been doing lately, is that I have not been taking
financial action, so I said 2.5 years ago one ought to invest in gold, and I did not. I did chuck a
thow into an index fund but that’s it. It was at the wrong time, and I knew it. I should take right
Biggest shitty thing is laziness. Work hard. I have been working harder. Good to take time off
if I need time off. Also addressing problems which need to be addressed.


Thoughts on painting.
Is it a painting or a sculpture? As a rule of thumb if it is on the wall it is a painting. Also, If the
sculptural element is made away from the painting it is a dialogical sculpture painting
thing. However, if you make the sculpture out of the painting, it is a painting.
That is why it was so important for me to find this silicone sealant material. I did not
want to design the sculptural element separately. I wanted to paint it in space. Let be
baptize this technique by calling it: Impasto fortissimo.


Grateful for my influence on those around me.


Well now. What a marvelous day. By having only one focus, my painting and studio work, and
forgetting the gym, lica200, driving, america, ect. I had a great day. I even finished a painting
and got doors. I am excited about my work, especially with the doors. I rode my bike back the
sun helped today. I had food, and then at one point just lay in my bed looking up at the ceiling
and I encountered once again, that miraculous feeling of the golden glow. Everything about me
seemed golden. I was completely at peace, my mind was free, I was happy. I was so grateful
for everything. I think it was because I had finished a painting. The door probably also helped.
Either way, The feeling was tremendous. The only other time I have had this feeling recently
was in first year, when I finished the mop paintings. I had smoked, and I listened to that
Fleetwood mac song albatross and was at peace. It was the most beautiful thing I had ever
heard. The golden glow seems to come when I make big artistic steps. Inspirational, paradigms
which are new. How wonderful. I felt so good and happy, nothing I had to do bothered me. I
just felt good. waw, the dopamine, I feel healthy and good.
I told her passionately about Nabokov and how he invites the reader, and is hospitable to
them. Which is why I hate minimalism. It is not hospitable. Just as Nabokov invites the
reader in a cozy living room, and shows the utmost hospitality, so I want my paintings to
do this same thing. The painting does most of the work. It vivacities the viewer just as a
good natured ebullient person animates those around them. My paintings will not sap
energy from the view, like conceptual art and minimalism does. How good life is. How
good today was.
I guess my leaps of faith have been working. That is how I finished the painting I finished
today. This is why miniatures won’t work. When you work in the realm of the forms, you
cannot work with an imitation of an imitation. You can only work directly with the form
through the matter of the painting itself. And I work in the realm of the forms.
This is one of the things that those who doubt don’t understand at all. I have made many formal
shifts and discoveries, and a couple of them have even been good, and they don’t get it. I don’t
even pity them, let alone feel angry towards them. What I do is exist, and perhaps I can help
them see. Not to be too self-righteous or anything lol.
Plato explained that a representative painting is an imitation of an imitation of a form.
The real shifts in history have come with shifts in forms. So, it is this formal shift, along
with a great deal of prolificity which is valuable. A small representation of what a big
painting is merely an imitation. One cannot plan such things. It is like trying to write full
sentences with only half the letters.
I also think that movies have traditionally been made in one way. Namely writing, then story
boarding, slating ect. This form has grown from history. However one could reconceptualize
movie making and find a better technique, and form of creativity. Way of making and therefore,
also form of movie.
Again, thinking about the systems out actions leave behind, and remaking those systems if they
become antiquated and inefficient. A great symptom of this, of course is bureaucracy.


Art grounded in the subjective. Even if it is empirical and therefore conducive to logic, if one
describes merely the sensations one feels from it, it is subjective. Because it is about the subject.
I realize that I don’t understand what subjective means. Subjective does not mean that anything
can be good and anything can be bad. Subjective does not remove all hierarchy of quality, let
alone quality itself. Subjective merely means that the phenomena or things one is talking about
and experiencing are filtered through the individual person. Can something be subjective and
objective? So, everything is experienced subjectively. Yes, because those two methods are not
inherent to the object. Subjectivity is inherent in humans, we are subjects, and objectivity is
inherent in objects, they are objects. Can one say anything objective about a piece of art? Is
beauty subjective?
Perhaps it is unlike what I thought, perhaps it is not creativity with the hands which comes first,
then thoughts. Perhaps creative thought comes first, or perhaps logic comes first. More likely
it is cyclical where each feeds the other.
Is beauty subjective? What is beauty? Is it that which incites a sensation of joy, pleasure, peace?
Something which incites positive emotion. So it is in the world of the forms? Or is it the
sensation itself that is beautiful. No, it is not. The sensation is subjective. The beauty is
objective. Just because something is objective does not mean that everyone can see it
plainly. Art, like mathematics is learned. It is like knowledge. Discovered and
remembered. Plato -> Kant.
Objective does not mean that everyone sees and understands something is so. If I have a correct
mathematical problem, but I have a majority who do not agree that the problem is correct, is it
therefore false??
No certainly not. It is true.
So, if many people say that a piece of art is bad, but it is not, does that mean it is bad?
How do you know art is true. It is similar to mathematical knowledge where you recollect
We generally agree as a society what and who is beautiful and who not. That does not account
for everyone. Is something either beautiful or not, or is beauty on a scale. That is to say, are
some things beautiful, and are some things more beautiful. Surely we cannot determine this by
democracy, by majority? Or can we? If the majority of people believe that one thing is
beautiful, is that thing therefore beautiful? If beauty is real, like mathematics, then no, we
Who decides what is beautiful?
Just like deciding what is true in maths, it is not agentially defined by a person, but rather true
and obvious when explained.
Perhaps when art is within culture beauty is usurped by cultural power dynamics and
influence. But when it is new and in discovery, it is clear that some things are beautiful
and some things are not.
Imagine a boy who has never been taught basic maths and geometry being confronted with
something as abstract as algebra. If it does not make sense to him it does not mean that it is not
Does that mean that the boy can never understand? No. He must learn. That is not to say he
must be taught. Because knowledge cannot be imparted but only recalled and discovered. The
boy starts with simple equations, and works his way up, by understanding all these things he
then understands maths. Just like the slave-boy in Plato’s Meno.
Just because the average person on the street does not understand that something is beautiful
does not mean it is not beautiful, correct?
So he must learn gradually, and receive an education in art and beauty, by making and taking
in much art and beauty. He will then learn to appreciate and love art. He will then understand
more complex and abstract beauty.
How do we know?
Does beauty get in the way of art?
Here is the problem with beauty. In maths, say, this is true, this is true, therefore the other is
true. X plus y is 5 is true, x times x is 1, therefore y is 4 In beauty it is harder to extend beyond,
that is to say, to reason by logic. However people have done it. Let us take the impressionists.
Something represents something else. Here are random colours which have an impression of
something. By extensions, there can be cubism, by extension, abstract expressionism, by
extension ect. Ect. objectivity becomes self-evident. Is there something wrong with this logic?
Beauty is subjective. This means that beauty is, or is determined by the sensations we feel about
something. Empirical.. Opposed to Kant.
I can see that my argument was going to be: just as the ancient Greeks discovered logic which
endures, so too they discovered beauty which endures. We live in the dark age of beauty. We
do shun any idea of suppression of beauty and the idea that beauty could be objective as
a retaliation to Nazism. Not understanding that just because the cake is bad does not
mean that all the ingredients are bad too. How do we get back to this objectivity of
beauty? By educating ourselves and practicing judgement. By looking at art, making our
rooms, our houses and our technologies beautiful. Like Apple.
Is abstract beauty possible, most certainly. Not only statues of marble. Or representational
paintings. But lengths and heights and colours which are beautiful. Do we then strip down and
aim for a reductionism? Seems nihilistic.
Things also depend on their context. Utilitarianism is useful. Lol no shit. For example a modern
building with big windows ect is beautiful because it is useful, but a shack in the woods which
is crooked, is also beautiful because you can see its usefulness. Each beam, pane, and wall is
placed in a ‘form follows function’ method, in modern architecture. Just the same is true for
the shack of the woods. Form follows function. The fireplace is placed there because that is
where it will generate the most heat. The Windows smaller, to conserve that heat ect. The
ultimate uselessness is a repurposed place. With rooms which weren’t meant for what they are
now used. The change and contrast, however, may be beautiful. For example the priory which
is now a coffee shop.


My previously made conclusion about thoughts don’t get you anywhere holds true. I just gotta
start doing. I think I realized this in the monastery. Thoughts are endless.
So, I am not as prepared and focus and know what I want to do like I did for certain series. I
just gotta do. It comes in waves. This is a more sparse wave, but I step in faith.
I am grateful for my influence.
Even when life is easy, art is hard.
Anyway, point is, I got this sudden excitement about being tired after each day in my life, really
exhausting myself. Really using up my life force for art. It made me feel hopeful. I want to be
tired. I want to be used up. On my deathbed, I want to feel relaxed and spent. I want to be spent.
And We all have a choice and decision on how we are spent. Are we spend in service of others,
or a fruitless, or fruitful machine? An Immoral or amoral machine? Capitalistic ect. At the end
of the day I get to choose how I get spent. And art, love and thought is how. In that order.
I also got motivation from my mother. She texted me out of the blue that she often asks herself
what she would do if she were to live over her life again. More and More she thinks that she
ought to have become some kind of artist and creative. Not necessarily a painter, but some type
of artist. She feels like she has not been that creative in her life. And that that would be a good
way to spend it. It was the one thing she would most want to do and be. Inspiration from a
sense of an ending. Instead of living alife in which you let things happen to you, life a life in
which you make things happen.


Plato Protagoras and meno dialogs
So, Protagoras and Meno. Firstly as to the question of teaching virtue, it is through asking
questions that one best teaches. The idea of the world of forms, that mathematics, and perhaps
art ect. Exists in a formal world of its own. What is form in the platonic sense? It is the meta
thing which can define anything within it. So, Drawing is a form and it can define anything
which makes a mark on something else. Sculpture would be making this mark in space. Form
in the platonic sense. Beneath the disciplines, we have figures, or landscape ect. Real creativity
happens on the plane of the forms. On the highest plane. In order for us to understand the
highest plane it takes a hundred years or more. So, we can try exploring the high but slightly
lower planes for more ready understanding by the masses.
I think that art poses a question too, and that people learn by it. It provokes something, and has
the possibility to open up something new, art evokes nostalgia for that which one has never
experienced before. So, in past life, or meta life, soul life, or true reality.
On phone on plane: Idea: Socratic questioning, it is not through being taught but through being
questioned that one recollects knowledge and art. It is from the fabric of dreams and art that
one takes out of Heideggerian sense of art. There is the world of forms and the world of art.
When people look at a good painting, it is something they recall. They remember feelings
which they may never have felt in their lives before. It is a nostalgia for something they have
never experienced.
Socrates said something like: We are braver men if we look for what we do not know, than if
we believed we can’t know what we do not know. – Same applies to love. Faith. We are
endowed with faith..
Musk, has been collectively endowed with faith. This is the strength of capitalism. This is why
tesla and all those companies are so overvalued, it is not about the company, it is about the
moral and competent and willful man. The virtuous, the person who could help change the
world and unfuck it from big tech ect. Maybe Laissez faire capitalism is the goat

Right opinion is as good as knowledge… Statesmen are like prophets. They have no real
recollection of what they have said, but they can often be right and that is all we need.
We regard highly, and rightly so, those who (though they have no knowledge of what they are
saying) are proven right by divinity, right opinion. Just like an artist. The artist does not know
what they are doing, but is ordained by grace with the right action they take.
Thank god for day-dreaming, let us foster it, not suppress it. It is the person who makes time
for daydreaming who has the time for everything else too.

April Paintings:

Just in the same way that I had come to the conclusion, last year, that a painting ought not to
hide its nature, so my thought process in making these was not to hide the nature of my
materials. I used transparent silicone for the first time, instead of colouring it. I stapled and
nailed patches of canvas, not hiding the fact that I was hiding something. This reminds me of
that very ‘art-world’ statement Mary Boone made about Basquiat.
On him crossing out words: “They are more powerful in their absence, no?”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *