omniartist

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)

Tragic LOve

I am a child of tragic love
not a minute
a moment
a day,
a year
a life -
did I ever live in such bright agonizing distain.
So tragic is a love
with regret.
A love that tied my heart in thorns
left beating
with every pulse
stuck and pricked
with every breath...
You said you love me
and with every word -
you struck me
murderously.
left bloody
in the grammatical
litany,
of the simple
words thee
threw,
and drawn
on me.
You'd say
"love"
and then "You."
how you made old
so new.
Why must words
speak.
leak
so tragically
solid truth.
bleeding out
in the lies
and deception.
You slew me
Slay thee
in the love
you had
blinded
we...
me
shrouded from
the hush-keep,
your slut...tee.
ways
I'd die in your voice
everyday
with your critical yelps
and cynical whelps,
I'd buckle and break
upon the plastery wall
an inanimate therapy.
My fists bled as my knuckles caressed holes
in their face,
and you'd celebrate the pain
with plates
and pots
which
flew through the air -
winged demonic beasts of jealousy and fear.
What tragedy
with such dramatic endings
and tender lust filled beginnings
corrupted soil
enriched with tainted turmoil.

I was you and you me
in tragic
tragedy
...yes, I was forged
in the warm course grained arms
of tragic love.
left with souvenirs
of pity-wishes,
and burnt faith.
how tragic
is the tragedy,

of love.

-Hiram 12/7/12

does art have boundaries? and the guy replies with his answer, yes it does... so here is my lengthy answer, of what I think.... or should I say? the essay I wrote. lol. (I'm such a dork)

I would have to disagree... I believe art in it's purist form, should be limitless, is limitless, and therefore boundless, i.e. no boundaries.

If we are talking about taboos, and whether or not animals or cells have taboos... well that's debated down to what is your definition of "taboo." because taboo is based in cultural normality (no matter what that might be in any given/specific culture your discussing) and/or societal moral standards... the taboo would be something which is an outlier from that standard or norm. And whether or not cells and animals have "taboos?" first you would have to explain how these entities have a society or culture.

And if your talking about Art, and taboos of Art, or what is taboo in Art... that taboo would be subjective, and based on individual ideals. Because someones art "taboo" can differ from someone elses art "taboo." e.g. for (majority) of muslim artists it is taboo to create portraits, that's why in muslim architecture, you will only see geometric forms and patterns, it wouldn't be laced with figures like a catholic cathedral. But, because the lack of or the addition of either elements doesn't make that art less artistic...

Art is boundless and needs to be so in order to be art.

Art is creation itself and that which has not yet been created, all that is reality and will become reality is Art. And yes, that can be scary and humbling for any "Artist" who considers themselves uniquely skilled and or talented in any area of expertise, but an artist who is afraid of that concept or definition is just becoming a victim of their own ego.

so some examples:

Let's take the beautiful landscape and the photographer for our first example. The Photographer who captures this beautiful landscape and places it in a frame. Would that landscape, the existence of it, be any less artistic or 'not' art, without the artist capturing it and placing it in a frame? Maybe... let's take it further and say lets say there was no human being on earth alive to capture that landscape, but that landscape still existed, would that landscape still be considered a work of art?

(we can argue that the 'boundaries' that needed to be implemented in order for it  to be categorized as art - was the composition and framing. but I'll address that further down)

Let's look at the artist & subject - e.g. of subject is a pebble.
1. as a photographer, I can find the pebble and take a picture of it in nature, or back in the studio and have more control on composition, or I can start a series of photos about pebbles.
2. as a painter, I can use all the styles and techniques available in rendering that pebble in whatever fluid medium I choose.
3. as a sculptor, I can reproduce the pebble in clay, stone, glass, or ground up pebbles remade to be the pebble.
4. as a writer, or poet, I can write a script or poem about the pebble
5. as a filmmaker, shoot a film in any style I wanted regarding this pebble.
6. as a song writer, I can write a song about that pebble
7. as a comedian I can write jokes, stories, and euphemisms about it
8. as a dancer or performer, I can incorporate choreography in my dance, or as a performer, place the pebble on the plate and attempt to eat it.

we can go further, but as you might already understand, what I am trying to get at, is this: The source, the subject of inspiration is this pebble. And it is the pebble itself, which is a work of art. The art that is created from the pebble or by  the pebble doesn't matter, and none of that takes away from the art created from the pebble or the artistry of the pebble itself.

you can take this analogy and replace it with any subject, man, woman, mountain, spoon.

so to go to the next example, (maybe a little more controversial) let's go with the subject, and replace the pebble with sex and when we do that many people think you get pornography or sexually charged Art. and what is the difference? there is none...

for example Shunga, japanese images depicting sexual acts (mainly carved from woodblocks), or Indian kamasutra images and relief sculptures. These ancient artifacts were considered porn in it's time now considered Art in modern times. Well you can say nobody, a thousand years from now, is going to consider "Hustler" an art form, or work of art. But Shunga and kamasutra was made, not only to be admired for it's craftsmanship, but mainly to pleasure oneself and others much like what "hustler" and "playboy" does today. Does that make it less of an art form or art, and does something that is not art, slowly over time, grows into becoming art? I'd argue no, art is art from creation to decay no matter what the 'subject.'

we can further take art into the world of sex and place it on video... why would "debbie does dallas" be considered art. Well, why would performance art be considered art, or dance. Your adding more elements, even more human elements when your discussing "porn." It's ok for two lions to be videoed having sex, be rewarded and acknowledged for being captured in a documentary, or film. But a film made for someone's pleasure, inspired by a subject or theme is not art?  the only difference I see is subject matter. And art should not be defined by subject matter alone. e.g. muslim vs. christian architecture, both convey art with different subject matter.

Now we can go even further to the most controversial subjects of all, Webcam, self shot, spontaneous photos, over the shoulder, above the head, camera phone, etc. many artists and even spectators believe these images are not art, especially one's sexually charged. like an image of my penis, or vagina, or an image of my erect penis, or vagina with my finger in it... well for the most part who told you this wasn't art and based on what standard is it not art? or does it come from a general belief that images of sex or sexual parts is inapproriate and anything outisde the "classy" is trash and unworthy of a kosher title.

lets start with these controversial self portraits...

If you want the short end of a long story, all practicing artists whether they make actual self-portraits or take photos of landscapes or paint the nude female figure. These artist's are saying something about their "self." EVERY artist, subconsciously, consciously, creates artwork that is a self-portrait of him or herself, their art, is a part of who they are, and speaks about how they see the world and how they want others to see how they see themselves, whether or not they do actual self-portraits or work totally out of geometric patterns on fabric. An artist's work, is the story and accumulation of who that artist is.

so when someone takes a photo of themselves we can't say it's not art because it is wrapped in that person's ego, because most practicing professional artist are propelled and successful because of their ego, and it's their ego and confidence (or insecurities) that is displayed in their work. which is again about them. Artists art is always about him/herself.

So because someone is making a statement about "self" and can't articulate it well like a seasoned trained artist, does not mean their photos are not art. Because someone has better composition skills than another, doesn't make that person less of an artist or their work - none art. if we measured artists by their skill, and art by it's execution, there would be many things in this world that is not art. e.g. compare a rembrandt to a pollock; or a chuck close to a duchamp or warhol; or a warhol to a rodin...

Let's look at the "attention seeking whores" (which many of these "selfshot" artists are called)... All practicing artists are attention seeking whores, without our audience, we wouldn't be working working artists, and that's not saying without them we don't make art, but for the most part we create art to be shared and praised by others, no matter how prude you want to be about it. we wouldn't be on this site or on the internet if we weren't seeking attention.

How about the the "over shoulder" or "above head shots?..." well as mediocre and/or crude the method may be, these are people trying to compose a shot much like how a self proclaimed artist does, to get the best look or to eliminate unwanted elements (like a chubby belly, lol).

we settle (and maybe we didn't) that porn can be seen as art, so sexually charged webcam, low grade, images which depict someone pleasuring themselves, is art as well. no matter how poorly executed or recycled it may be. (recycled meaning maybe it was a photo they sent someone and now post it as art).

which moves me to the next example, if that is art, what about serial killers? who claim what they done was an art. Arguably, no matter what my moral core may scream to be right and wrong, based on my definition, yes, even a string of serial killings is art, artistic, and an art form...

lol, I know your like, "now that is stupid" lol.

but Art is not some pure untouchable, black & white, set in stone creed. Art is creation itself, and that which has not yet been created, all that is reality and will become reality is Art. And in reality there is sex, there is the mediocre, the unrefined, the immoral, the unprofessional, the lazy, the unskilled, and that all in itself, is art. Because Art can only exist without boundaries.

BUT, I understand when you say 'boundaries' and 'limits,' but I think the word your looking for is context. CONTEXT is what makes Art standout - it is context. "boundaries," "limits," separates things in totality, where CONTEXT, brings things together while separating it from the murkyness of similitude. That is what makes "great art" great. It is his/her ability to convey an idea that makes an artist powerful.

A great artist can place a speck of dust, in context with the world around it, to make art. It's that artists ability to place that subject in context in order to convey a thought, and not only convey it, but either make it comprehensible or vague that makes that artist a great artist. Art provokes feelings & thoughts, and if you ask me everything you see on DA does that.

it is all art, you just have to see it in context.


Thank you so so much for offering this question, and letting me convey my thoughts and opinions, I love your work and hope, if I haven't inspired your views to change, maybe, I helped to strengthen your beliefs

Sincerely,
Hiram^^

what do you think?

have to get back to working like crazy... not on art... but on that 1st and 3rd shift... BOOOOOOooo.. lol... let's see how this goes.

There was an issue with one of my pages, and a news article was replaced by another site. I was recently doing maintenance on the site (today 3:21am 9/14/12) and discovered the link gave my comp a virus.

<<<<THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED/FIXED.>>>>>

My Apologies if you went to that site and got the same thing.

now you can explore my page freely without worries.