Thoughts on a dim day

I am extremely relaxed.

From 2-5:30 I worked at the library, from 5:30-7:15 I had dinner (tuna on croisant w/ mustard, chips and granola bar + lemonade/sprite) and then built a shelf out of scrap wood for my storage space in the art department (aka, "Art Wedge"). I had to handsaw everything and use only glue, for I had no nails and with classes going on I couldn't use the electrics. I was a hunched over blue and khaki lump out on the loading docks, holding one side down with my knee and the other with the free hand. But it was finished and all my junk was put back in just in time to work again from 7:15-9:15. And that is where I am now.

My arms and hands are warm, relaxed and my mind is relaxed.

I have created something.

Earlier at work I was feeding my mind, sitting stationary in a chair, browsing the works of Jim Dine, William Kentridge, Ron Kitaj. Their flat-poetry moved me.

I have to say again, I want desperately now to work large, very large and spontaneously. Jim Dine once, for reasons of time, "produced an exhibition of huge, bold charcoal drawings directly on the walls of a gallery in Germany" in eight dyas and "the drawings remained on the walls for only six weeks before being painted over". The proces of the piece was made into a video titled Jim Dine: A Self-Portrait on the Walls, no luck so far in securing a copy.

I love the idea though.

Some of the greatest works of art were not laboured over for months or years, some were completed very quickly, such as sumi-e masterpieces (a matter or minutes or seconds). John Singer Sargent completed masterful portraits of famous individuals of his time all in around two hours. But, this does not mean they were flippant. Years or decades of practice and experience preceeded the ability shown in these works. All works, whether visual, written or aural should be revised/reviewed, seen again, seen afresh/anew. But, the place where this revision takes place, over time moves from the page into the mind or eye of the individual. Less revison will need to be done the sharper the craft/eye of the person.

It is a matter or not merely looking but a way of seeing the world (a much overused distinction, but a valid one). A translation of what is objectively seen into a new language, but one that is capable of being transcribed. One may see, but can he translate well? Both are necessary to be effective. It's as if the individual is a conduit, routing sensory information in and spewing it out again, hopefully in a somewhat intelligible form.

A connection between the Eye and the Hand, run through the Heart and Mind.

Any and all thoughts, comments, critiques welcome (except for gramatical ones).