Month: July 2018

How creative can I be from a place of total inertia?  The mystics say the Still Point is the only place from which real creativity can come.  I tend to agree, but sometimes being in that Still Point is so damn boring, and you just want a little project to pass the time.

A few months ago, I aggravated a right foot issue that kept me hobbling for a month.  A few weeks ago, some mystery balancing act of pain acted up in my left foot (alas, Daniel Day Lewis is nowhere to be seen) and I have been as off my foot as possible.  So I have been languishing in a dull rotation of ennui, vapidity and miseration.  The excessive heat and OTC pain pills have kept my mind dull, my spirits flat, and my body rather intolerant.  What’s a Creator to do?  Youtube.

I’ve found watching videos about acrylic pour methods to be soothing, and found this one.  I like how this young man sets up conditions, adds paint, and sees what comes of it. Forces of nature take over and expressions of pattern ensue.  It is interesting to see when he chooses to specifically interfere with the process and when he lets it be.  The role of the artist here seems more passive than is usual yet it is also more symbiotic in how method and materials have their own voice and are less controlled by the artist.

Back to me.  I haven’t felt innovative or artistic, but I have managed practical functionality.  I decided to whip up a small quilt 60″ X 72″ out of my scrap bag fabrics.  Going through my stash to pick fresh fabrics, for a fresh design seemed like too much, and my scrap bag was overflowing. So I managed to sew several strip sets, cut some squares and set it all into a nice clean white background.  I didn’t feel like I needed those fabrics to live up to anything because I’ve already used them beautifully elsewhere.  It was a nice, low pressure project.  Here’s the gist, as I haven’t quilted it yet:

For being in a totally mediocre head space, I have to say, this quilt managed to be a fine little thing.  It may not be a leading edge of design,  or born from a place of inspired vision, but it is a humble, comfortable, “Yes!” It will be a nice gift for someone someday, much as its quiet creation has been a gift for me.  Creating this quilt got me back on my feet again, in so many ways.

I’m feeling profoundly exhausted at the moment, and rather than exert energy in getting out of my recliner and going to bed, I’m letting completely random things pop into my mind.  One of those things was ” 2 + 2 = 5.”  And in only a few minutes of sketching out imaginary sticks, I saw how it could be demonstrated to be an accurate equation. Here you go:

I googled the equation and see there are people out there who offer mathematical proofs for this.  They do it with a tricky flair, so use that grain of salt.  (for example, a commenter on a youtube video suggested starting with 4x = 5x, then remove x, 4 = 5 and therefore 2+2 = 5.  No one else commented that that method removes the equalizing force of x, but we’re not talking absolutes here.  Only proofs manipulated to support a proposal.) But it has me contemplating math and symbol.  The equation is made up of glyphs that are representational.  They represent given quantities, and then they exert an action on those quantities, as well as show a relationship between those quantities.  It is all ephemeral, even if we base realities and truths on those glyphs.  And, there is an underlying assumption that the quantities represented are equal. One “1” is equal to another “1”, and when considered collectively, they can be shown as “2”.

My little demonstration with lines, while also representational, goes more into the actual form of something quantifiable, in this case lines.  But those individual lines are not equal.  Two of the lines are vertical, of the same length, but each occupies a different space.  The other two lines are horizontal, not of the same length, nor occupy the same space.  The degree of detail or description I use to define my basic line or “1” line, decides  how much I can represent those lines as quantities in an equation.  If my upper horizontal line is twice the length of my other three single lines, then I could write the equation (1 length + 1 length) vertical + 1 length + (1 length+ 1 length) horizontal =5 lines, would be right, and would be a dimension of truth in the equation 2 vertical + 2 horizontal = 5 lines. But it only has an element of truth because I have neglected to define my quantities equally.

I have also shown how 2 (lines) + 2 (lines) = 5 (90 degree angles.) Now my details are way off, but it still demonstrates the equation.  (2 things + 2 things= 5 things) So, what’s my point?  At this late hour, I’m not sure if I have one.  I really just got to thinking, and decided to write it all out.

But I offer the invitation to consider how things you think are truthful or absolute (like 2+2=4) or things you think are false or ridiculous (like 2+2=5), can be completely altered when taken from concept into form.  How are you allowing your world to create itself around you?  How many beliefs limit what your reality can show you?  And how much proof do you need to allow your experiences to be as true as your beliefs, especially when they contradict each other? Sweet dreams.