Observation is the art of looking into, not at a person or thing. It is a critique not a criticism. It is the capacity to objectively look into personalities behind the mask of physicality, analyze the expressions, actions and communications which define an individual's essence. These captured elements become the mosaic pieces which, together, sculpt the dimensions of an existence, the “raison d’être” of a person. They are the flint which sparks life into a two or three dimensional representation.

At times, observation is an exhilarating exercise where time stands still and a wondrous mood takes over, forming the ground upon which an interpretation is constructed.

At its most exciting , the observation of a subject reveals a personality whose essence is so incredible it radiates - touching the lives of others in such a way as to better them without ever exuding an iota of superiority. As well, non-judgemental observation also allows us to discover, in what appears to be an ordinary life, the extraordinariness which makesan individual unique.

At other times, observation can be frightening as it unwittingly unveils a darkness, an aura which may even be invisible to the observed personality.

Media driven cult personalities are a case in point. Over time some of them can only take on rote facial expressions, use ordinary words other-worldly and exude an “uber-ness” - a level of superior existence which appears to rise above and beyond our own. The constant recognition and adulation of the public seem to be their life support, essential to their fragile yet powerful "star" existence. This idolatry seems to mutate the observed personalities' initial passions into obsessions, their uniqueness into superiority, their responsibillity to guide into manipulation and their righteousness into self-righteous. - 22-10-05

Rembrandt was wallied, Van Gogh was psychologically impaired. And without these "contemporary scientific discoveries" (!) neither man would have been the "genius" that he was. . . Sheesh. . . It's no wonder we haven't discovered a cure for cancer. When science involves itself in such inanities and the media considers it newsworthy - how would we ever find the time?

Only in this century is it possible for creative attributes to be directly associated with and\or emanate from self-induced victimization and\or disease. As both reality tv and the dogmatic fundamentals of fad genetics impact equally on contemporary psyches let's not be surprised when revisionism replaces history as an academic exercise. Ignoring reality or re-creating it is the new reality.

In the twentieth century we rid ourselves of responsibility and guilt (and a conscience) by associating "bad behavior" with genetics and "obvious assymetric brain wave patterns". Today, we rid ourselves of feelings of inadequacy by tearing down the legacies of those we once deemed "superior" - those we once idolized as having "genius" qualities which we could look up to and emulate.

It seems that artistry is no longer the result of passion coupled with a superior creative mind - honed by personal effort and discipline in the acquisition of technical skill. It seems objectionable in this day and age to recognize that a creative being would apprentice themselves for years in order to harness the power of visual language and communication. And based on the concept of rejection of (ugh!) work. . . , it seems improbable that to assume that such a mind, through discipline, would be freed to explore and experiment and create visual poetry which, after many centuries, is still recognized today as exceptional.

Attributing success to and associating it with genetic predisposition eliminates the mystery of uniqueness. It homogenizes the whole of which we are a part and reassures us, in a very sick way, that we too have a (technocratic) chance at stardom - (genetic victimization being so democratic and all). . .

Let's face it folks. Striving to be the best we can be is the most we can hope for in the expression of our own uniqueness.

 
Being dubbed a genius, more often than not, will have more to do with upcoming generations whose mind-set and psychological health (or lack of same) will determine whether we are villified or praised as lucky flukes of a genetic construct. (Hell, believing in this diatribe is a safer bet than admitting that some of us are actualty "lesser" at some stuff than others!)

The world has always been and always will be an undemocratic yet mysterious and wondrous place. In it, some of us do better in some areas than in others. Being a (positive) part of the whole is all we can hope to be. So let's stop mucking around with revising the past to suit every "new and improved" need to auto-flagellate - to cover up our (perceived) present blemishes which, in so many more ways than one, constantly prove only one main point: that we in this new century are in dire need of a life. - 26-09-04

The eye is but a tool which “takes in” what the mind analyzes and the hand executes. The soul gives the rendering the aura of art. . . or it does not. - 01

Too often the art of observation is subordinate to the art of obfuscation. - 99

Observation Is a critical exercise, not an exercise in criticism. - 99

To observe is to see beyond looking. - 98

Seeing is the foundation of rendering art work correctly, which in turn is the foundation of the awe we experience in the craft of art. - 96