The Root Tongue vs. The Spectacle: Subverting the Simulation

In the first two installments, we explored how asemic overwriting converts everyday utilitarian papers into artisticly sacred relics, and how it stretches the time-based biology of how we look at art. But this practice is not just an aesthetic experiment; it is a vital act of cultural resistance in many ways.

In an era dominated by hyper-mediated digital environments, our excessive reliance on human language has become a trap. We live inside what the French theorist Guy Debord termed the Society of the Spectacle - a capitalist reality where genuine human experiences are replaced by a glossy, simulated media landscape. We are constantly bombarded by semantic messages, ads, notifications, and political propaganda designed to distract us from our own true natures. This language of the Spectacle manipulates our rational minds, turning us into predictable products and passive consumers. We are chronically confused, constantly mistaking the simulation and its messages for the Real.

Speaking the Root Tongue

When language is weaponized to sell and control, literal meaning breaks down. To fight back, the artist must step away from formalized alphabets entirely. Beneath our rigid human grammar lies the root tongue - the all-pervading, intrinsic language of the universe talking to itself in infinite multiplicity.

Our primitive human languages are clumsy, limited tools. They are prone to corruption and poorly suited to translate the vastness of this fundamental reality. They trap the intellect within a purely rational framework.

Asemic writing shifts the burden of communication away from institutional alphabets and returns it to the human body. It relies on the raw language of the hand, translating subconscious intuition directly onto the page through kinetic gesture. This somatic expression bypasses semantic gatekeeping to speak directly to and about what cannot be directly spoken - tapping into a pre-literate intelligence. It is a language we all intuitively understand deep below the surface of learned grammar.

Short-Circuiting the Transaction

Advertisers and propagandists exploit the rational mind’s ever present, evolutionary urge to decode, label, and categorize. They give us text and image, and we instinctively try to pull a transaction out of it. By presenting script that firmly, beautifully refuses to be decoded, asemic overwriting short-circuits this transactional loop.

When you look at an altered document, the unreadable mark becomes an act of concrete truth. It invites the reader to make a cognitive leap across the divide, moving away from rational intelligence and stepping fully into their intuitive intelligence. By stripping the historical document of its ability to sell, instruct, or bureaucratize, the artwork stops the machinery of the Spectacle in its tracks.

Reclaiming the Real

Ultimately, this is why the converted paper artifact becomes a relic. It is a preserved vessel of pure human presence.

• The Aura of Mystery: It mimics handwriting but refuses to reveal a specific sentence, carrying an aura of hidden knowledge under a cover of ambiguity.

• The Trace of the Hand: In a digitized world, physical mark-making leaves a permanent monument to a fleeting human moment over a dead, bureaucratic record.

• Sacred Interruption: It halts the natural decay of vernacular history, sanctifying a forgotten piece of ephemera and drawing it into the timeless realm of art.

Asemic overwriting clears a quiet, unmediated space within the digital noise. It rescues utilitarian artifacts from the trash heap of history, breaks the spell of the simulation, and invites us to look past the text, reconnect with our interior natures, and experience the raw weight of the Real.

(More about Root Tongue. Last fall I wrote a series of pieces called the Root Tongue Dust Letters. You can search for them on the homepage of the Touchonian.)

Thank you for following along with this three-part series.

Please feel free to share your thoughts, your own experiences with asemic art, or how you navigate the noise of the Spectacle in the comments below.

Leave a comment

Share

STUFF THAT HAPPENED LAST WEEK

I accidentally emailed the previous article The Arts as a Unified Field. I had intended just to post it online instead of email it. Otherwise I have mostly been posting incoming works for the visual Poetry and Color Exhibition coming up August 15 in Los Alamos, NM in Notes.

I updated the Exhibition page for the Visual Poetry Show So far about 23 new pieces have come in to add to the exhibit in Los Alamos. Thank you to those who have contributed!

I am going to keep going with the once a week ‘digest’ email posts for a while to see how that works out.

See what happened in NOTES

The Arts as a Unified Field

For some time now I have been interested in what I think of as the crossover between the arts. A reader recently suggested that my Asemic Writing drawings may create a synesthetic experience. That observation made me stop and think because I do not believe what I am doing is exactly synesthesia, at least not in the neurological sense. Although that is not to say that the viewer may have such an experience.

Synesthesia is generally understood as an involuntary crossing of the senses. Someone may hear a sound and automatically perceive a color. A letter may always appear blue or a musical note may always produce the sensation of a particular shape. It is a remarkable phenomenon, but it is not quite how I work I don’t think.

My own exploration is intentional as opposed to involuntary.

I might be walking while listening to Hans Zimmer, John Adams, Steve Reich, or Igor Stravinsky. As I walk I find myself moving my hands through the air, conducting invisible gestures, imagining how those movements might later become marks on paper. I am not trying to illustrate the music. I am trying to understand its form. I am asking myself how rhythm, repetition, acceleration, pause, density, silence, and release might become visual events that express musicality.

The drawing does not represent the music. It is composed according to similar principles that I acquire through listening.

The same thing happens with collage poetry.

When I think about collage poetry, I am rarely thinking about the literal meaning of words. I collect phrases from other peoples texts that catch my attention and then arrange and rearrage them. I am thinking about cadence, ambiguity, abrupt justaposition of the phrasing, compression, openness, emphasis, repetition, interruption, and the unexpected turn. I don’t really think of them as spoken but as read. Good poetry has architecture. It unfolds through time while maintaining an internal coherence that is felt before it is analyzed.

Can a drawing possess cadence? Can a collage have meter? Can an asemic work contain alliteration without letters?

Such questions fascinate me.

Perhaps we have been separating the arts too completely. We organize them according to the senses through which they are most commonly experienced. Music belongs to hearing. Painting belongs to sight. Dance belongs to movement. Poetry belongs to language.

Yet when one begins making art, these distinctions may begin to dissolve. In my case I am always looking for the in-between states. I think that is where the creative impulse lives.

A composer speaks of texture. A painter speaks of rhythm. A poet of color. A dancer of line. The vocabulary itself begins migrating across disciplines because the underlying experience is no longer confined to the artistic discipline of a single sense.

I am looking for the deeper language from which all of the arts arise.

This relates closely to what I have elsewhere called the Root-Tongue.

The Root-Tongue is not English or Chinese or music or drawing. It is the underlying field of relationships through which the universe speak to itself and from which all expressive forms emerge. Rhythm exists before music. Gesture exists before drawing. Silence exists before poetry. Pattern before mathematics. Movement before dance.

The various arts are simply different human dialects interpreting the same original language through which the universe converses with itself.

When I make asemic drawings I often think less about writing than about conducting and composing. The hand becomes a performer responding to something that cannot yet be spoken. The page becomes a recording device whose music is visible rather than audible.

Likewise, when I listen to music I often find myself seeing gestures as I am hearing notes. Not because the music literally becomes visual, but because I am listening for its structure. I am translating one dialect of the language of art into another.

This may explain why artists so often understand one another across disciplines. A sculptor may deeply appreciate Bach. A poet may understand abstract painting. A choreographer may discover ideas in architecture. They are not borrowing subjects from one another. They are recognizing familiar principles spoken in different dialects.

Every art form is engaged in the same ancient conversation. The media differ. The senses differ. The artifacts differ. The root language beneath them remains the same.

At the Root of Things

As I continued thinking about this, I realized that perhaps I had stopped one step too soon.

I suggested that music, poetry, drawing, dance, and the other arts might all be different dialects of the same Root-Tongue. I still believe that is true, but where exactly does this Root-Tongue reside?

It cannot be located in the eye. It cannot be located in the ear. Nor in the hand.

The eye only receives light. The ear only receives vibrations. The skin responds to pressure and temperature. Each sense gathers only a fragment of the world.

Yet somehow we do not experience fragments. We experience a seamless reality.

Somewhere beyond the senses themselves there exists a synthesizing awareness that gathers these independent streams into a single coherent experience. We do not consciously assemble sight, sound, touch, memory, balance, smell, language, emotion, expectation, and imagination. They simply arrive already woven together.

Consciousness is performing an extraordinary act of composition every moment of our lives. This synthesis is so complete that we rarely notice it. Perhaps this is where the arts truly originate.

An artist does not merely paint what is seen or compose what is heard. The artist works from the already synthesized field of experience. When a composer writes music, the music carries movement, emotion, architecture, color, memory, silence, anticipation, and physical gesture. When a painter makes a drawing, the drawing contains rhythm, duration, weight, acceleration, pause, and breath. These qualities are not borrowed from another art form. They were never separate to begin with.

The separation occurs only after we begin naming the senses.

Consciousness itself is not divided into departments. The eye does not know that it is visual. The ear does not know that it is auditory. Those distinctions belong to analysis, not experience.

Before we divide the world into seeing, hearing, touching, speaking, and moving, there is simply awareness meeting the world in its wholeness.

Perhaps this explains why artists are continually crossing boundaries between disciplines. We are not importing musical ideas into drawing or poetic ideas into sculpture. We are returning upstream to the place before those distinctions existed.

It may be the natural activity of consciousness itself as it encounters reality before thought separates experience into categories.

The various arts then become different ways of revealing that original unity. Each medium makes visible one aspect of an indivisible whole. Each artwork becomes evidence that consciousness is fundamentally synthetic rather than analytic.

Creative insight comes first. Analysis begins afterward.

When we read something we are, in effect, ignoring the representational medium of language and gazing past it to extract or listen to the ideas and information the language is carrying to us.

What if this activity of reading is carried into the field of abstract art?

The Saccadic Rhythm: Why Seeing is a Time-Based Art

When we look at a page of asemic overwriting, we are immediately met with a paradox. Our brains are deeply conditioned to find patterns, decode symbols, and extract literal information. When the eye encounters a transformed historical document, it naturally tries to read. But because the marks are illegible, the typical transactional process of reading breaks down.

Instead of a passive extraction of data, the act of looking becomes a kinetic experience. By retaining language remnants - shards of letters, faint typographical lines, or isolated vowels - within the overwritten surface, the work intentionally triggers a phantom sense of reading. It encourages a state of looking that closely mimics listening to a piece of music. It forces us to recognize a fundamental truth about visual art: seeing is inherently a time-based medium.

Chronostasis: The Dance of the Moving Focal Point

This temporal engagement relies heavily on the biological reality of human vision. We often assume that our eyes take in an entire visual field all at once, like a camera capturing a single snapshot. In reality, our brains construct a complex illusion.

Physiologically, we only see with high-resolution clarity through a remarkably tiny focal point. To navigate the world, our eyes perform small, rapid, involuntary movements called saccades. We jerk from point to point, stitching the world together millisecond by millisecond. Everything outside this narrow, razor-sharp window belongs to a blurry peripheral vision.

This peripheral sight is not empty space; it gives us a general feeling of the surrounding environment. In an asemic work, your tiny focal point hunts across the page, tracking the remnants of the script. Meanwhile, your peripheral vision absorbs the blurry context of the original document - the ghost of the old ledger, the faded ink of a letter, or the formal geometry of an old form.

Seeing as Listening

By encouraging the viewer to scan fragmented, unreadable text, the work stretches the temporal experience of focused looking. You cannot consume the image in a single glance. Your eye must travel along the loops, paths, and intersections of the ink.

This journey mirrors the physical process of listening to a musical piece unfold note by note. Music requires time to exist; a chord only has meaning in relation to the silence before it and the notes after it. Similarly, the asemic line demands a slow, deliberate presence. It builds a saccadic rhythm across the page, transforming the static paper relic into a living choreography of sight through the accumulation of the image through thousands of movements of our focal point as it moves around the surface gathering this abstract information into memory.

By demanding this slow, rhythmic focus, the artwork actively resists the rapid, hyper-fast consumption of modern digital imagery. It forces the brain to slow down, grounding the viewer in the physical mechanics of their own body - their own eyes.

This was the revolution created by Braque and Picasso with the cubist image - the breakdown of the image into shards and bits and pieces that have to be acquired through time by gathering the image through the focal point in order to build the image in the memory like a musical work is appriciated through memory over time.

But this biological intervention is only the beginning. What happens when we completely step away from the rational need to decode? What language are we actually speaking, writing and reading when the alphabet dissolves entirely?

Next week, in our final installment, we will dive into the “root tongue,” look at the political philosophy of Guy Debord, and explore how unreadable marks can rescue our true nature from a simulated world.

STUFF THAT HAPPENED LAST WEEK

OK, here is the new way I am doing the subscriber newsletter. It will be more of a weekly digest or have a table of weekly contents of things that were posted but not sent as endless emails. That way you can keep and refer to the weekly emails as a way to find everything. So, unless you visit the Touchonian website on Substack frequently, here are some things you missed that happened since the last email.

See what happened in NOTES

I love hearing from you! I want to hear what is on your mind. (and not with emojis please.)

Leave a comment

Share

Overwhelmed by Abundance

For the past several days I have been sorting through what I thought was a relatively small collection of paper I gathered from the walls of European cities this past spring. Posters, fragments of advertisements, weathered papers, torn typography, bits of color, accidental compositions. I had stuffed them into a few envelopes and ziplock bags and carried them home thinking, “There isn’t really that much here.”

I was wrong. As I spread everything out and began organizing it into categories, the true scale of what I had collected slowly revealed itself. Every handful became several more. Every stack became a pile. Every pile suggested hundreds of future collages.

At some point I found myself feeling something unexpected. I felt overwhelmed by the possibilities.

It struck me that this is a peculiar stage in an artist’s life. Early on we imagine that if only we had more materials, more opportunities, more ideas, more books, more time, more space, everything would become easier. It does and it doesn’t. Abundance introduces an entirely different challenge. It widens the horizons, forcing reorientation. Every sheet of paper quietly asks to become something, carrying a possibility that suggests an invisible obligation. Every beautiful fragment seems to deserve a future.

The imagination immediately begins calculating. How many works could these materials become? How many years of work are sitting here? What combinations have I not yet imagined? Will I ever reach the bottom of the pile?

Of course the answer is that I probably won’t. And that is perfectly fine. I realized that I was unconsciously assuming responsibility for the entire collection, as though I had somehow entered into an agreement to use every scrap. But there was never such an agreement.

The papers are simply waiting. Some may become collages next week. Others may wait ten years before they reveal where they belong. Some may never be used at all. Unlike a chef, a collage artist does not have to worry about things going rotten. I like to work with materials that can collect dust. In fact, most of these materials have already collected dust, survived sun, wind, rain, mold, graffiti and been buried under other layers for weeks or months before I excavated them. They have acquired character and patina. Their value is not diminished by waiting but increased by it.

Nature operates this way. A forest produces millions of seeds knowing that only a fraction will become trees. Rivers carry stones that may wait centuries before becoming smooth. Museums preserve countless objects that may spend generations in storage before someone discovers exactly why they mattered.

Abundance is not demanding immediate action. Only our anxiety makes it feel that way. Better to see these materials as a library rather than a to-do list. Libraries are not read in a single lifetime. Archives are not exhausted. Gardens are not harvested all at once. Their purpose is simply to be available when the right moment arrives. Instead of seeing an impossible mountain of future work, I can simply see tomorrow’s work - and tomorrow is a very long time…

New Publishing Program

As I sat there looking at these endless stacks of paper, it occurred to me that I have fallen into a similar trap with my writing right here on this platform. Over the course of my time on Substack, my daily studio and writing practice has generated an abundance of text - over 800 posts to date. Because the writing engine never seems to burn out, I have been broadcast-mailing these reflections multiple times a week, sometimes daily.

But just like the piles of European street papers on my desk, an abundance of content introduces an entirely different challenge. It creates an invisible obligation for the recipient. I realize that a daily email is a lot to ask of a reader’s attention, and a crowded inbox quickly turns an invitation into a to-do list. I don’t want to wear my readers out, nor do I want to force an artificial hustle onto a space meant for contemplation.

Recognizing the next right move means learning not to panic in the face of limitless possibilities. It means structuring the flow.

And by the way, to give your inbox a much-needed breather while protecting my own creative momentum, I am shifting the rhythm of this publication. Moving forward, I am consolidating our email delivery to one comprehensive, dedicated essay like this, sent once a week - maybe on Tuesdays or Thursdays.

My daily fragments of thought, raw studio sketches, typographic observations, and process notes will move entirely over to the Substack Notes feed. This adjustment keeps your email inbox clean and spacious, allowing the weekly work to breathe on its own, while offering a low-stakes, real-time space for us to interact daily without triggering a constant email alert.

The collage papers are patient, they have already waited on city walls and crossed countries folded inside luggage; they can certainly wait quietly in the studio until the right moment calls them forward. Perhaps this is another lesson that comes with a long life in the studio. Scarcity teaches us to appreciate opportunities. Abundance teaches us how to pace ourselves so we can actually inhabit them.

And our writing and reading practice can be patient, too. Instead of clogging up you inbox with textual abundance I am shifting to this weekly schedule to give you, my dear readers, enough breathing room for you to have the time to read these posts by reducing the frequency. If you want more there are many articles that I am sure you have not read or would like to read again on the Touchonian website as I mentioned in a previous post.

The work has never been to conquer all the possibilities. The work is to recognize the next single step, and answer the call when it comes.

Read on the Web for the Full Experience

This publication is built to be an active, open dialogue, not a silent broadcast. If you are reading this inside your email client, the interactive community features are clipped. Please click through to the live website layout to join the conversation. I for one would love to hear your thoughts and I will respond.

Join the Web Conversation & Leave a Comment

Leave a comment

Join the Conversation: When you find yourself facing an overwhelming abundance - whether it is raw material in your workspace, ideas in your head, or media in your daily life - how do you intentionally narrow your focus to just the “next right choice” without panicking? Let’s discuss in the comments.

RETROACTIVE CONTENT

Here is a new experiment. I am going back retroactively to this post after it has already been published and emailed to subscribers. Below is a link to further thoughts on how I can stay restricted to a once a week email to subscribers as more of a digest but continue to post things to the live site of The Touchonian.

I assume, if you are one of my subscribers and already have gotten this post as an email, you will find this retroactive content when you click through from your email to the website.

If you are one of these subscribers. Let me know in the comments section that you noticed this retroactive (not radioactive) content.

Hi Gang.

There are currently about 800 posts on the Touchonian. It has really become a remarkable resource. While I write on many topics and I am frequently writing experimental things, the main spine and focus of the Touchonian is the section called Creative Lifestyle.

I am working on the manuscripts for these essays to become a series of books for your studio. I have collected together all of the articles through 2025 and am organizing them into readable catagories, etc.

What I often do is search for past articles by using the search function on the homepage and type in a subject or a keyword I want to read again and the search pops up a list of related articles. I find this very helpful.

When you have time and you have a subject you are wondering about use the search feature to pull up all related articles.

Side Note

I was reorganizing some books on my books shelves and came across a book of poetry from 2012 by Alan Michael Parker for which one of my images PDP #288 created in 2005 was hired for the cover of the book by Tupelo Press.

I just thought I would share that since I am rereading that book.

I also was looking over one of my own wild and crazy poetry books called “In an Agitated Voice” which is Minimalist Visual Poetry. All of the pages are in the same vein as the cover image. It is fasinating to page through and attempt to read it. I used a process I call ‘disemvowelment’. Where I replaced the vowels with other charactors to create a visual texture. It is possible to decode it with enough effort but the original texts that I used were also put through a text randomizer to destroy the original arrangement. In one poem I used ‘The Raven” by Edgar Allan Poe as found material and another piece by Anton Chekhov, etc.

Looking at the book this morning I am thinking some of my favorite pages could be blown up into large limited edition prints. That could be cool.

GET A COPY

North Sea Poets

We are a group of experienced poets based near the Scottish east coast. We run online masterclasses, and post here on poetry, poetics and the writing life.

From Utility to Aura: Turning Artifact into Relic

Part 1 of a series exploring how asemic overwriting rescues forgotten vernacular history from the dustbin of time.

To overwrite a document with lines that cannot be read is to perform an act of artistic alchemy. When we apply asemic writing - text that has the form of language but lacks a literal, semantic meaning - over preexisting paper artifacts, we do not simply deface them. We reface them. We transform them. This process strips a utilitarian or vernacular document of its standard - but now defunct - utility and replaces it with an intuitive, visual weight. In doing so, the mundane record dies, and the artistic relic is born.

The Deconstruction of the Vernacular

Everyday paper artifacts - century-old accounting ledgers, standard legal receipts, forgotten bureaucratic forms, or casual personal notes - were born out of utility. They are vernacular objects, created not for display, but to perform a transactional or communicative function within a specific moment in time. They carry data and enforce logic. They are of a temporary, ephemeral use.

Asemic overwriting intentionally disrupts this functional history. By layering illegible, abstract marks over the original print or script, the artist creates a definitive visual barrier.

This act of obfuscation fundamentally changes how a viewer interacts with the object. When the text can no longer be decoded, it can no longer be used as a tool. Instead, the viewer is forced to look at the structure of the writing rather than through it for the data. The object shifts instantly from a piece of practical infrastructure into a site of artistic contemplation, dissolving its utility to make room for pure creative aura.

The Architecture of the Palimpsest

It is critical to clarify that this process is not an act of erasure poetry, at least not in the sense of redaction or censorship. Censorship seeks to silence, and redaction seeks to hide; overwriting, conversely, seeks to reveal and to integrate. Rather than treating the surface as a blank slate to be wiped clean, the existing visual elements, typographical geometry, and marginalia are treated with reverence, serving as an intricate compositional guide.

By deliberately leaving visual clues to the origin of the document - especially when specific visual elements serve the final work - the piece remains anchored in historical reality. The past is not destroyed; it is collaborated with, creating a modern, psychological palimpsest. Historically, a palimpsest is a piece of parchment scraped clean and reused, leaving faint, ghostly traces of its original writing underneath. Here, the original bureaucratic or domestic layers are left completely visible beneath the new, abstract gestures.

This creates a powerful aesthetic tension between two distinct human impulses:

• The Utilitarian Layer: Represents historical structure, institutional logic, social order, and standard communication.

• The Overwritten Layer: Represents raw human intuition, subconscious gesture, and a universal language entirely free from the constraints of the laws of grammar.

The two layers bleed into one another. The rigid lines of a financial ledger, commercial receipt or the formal font of a legal document are swallowed by fluid, unreadable script, making the object feel deeply ancient yet thoroughly contemporary.

Preservation Through Transformation

A relic is an object that survives from the past, valued for its historical, spiritual, or emotional connection to human experience. Asemic overwriting infuses everyday utilitarian paper with the exact qualities that define a relic:

1. The Aura of Esoteric Wisdom: The marks mimic handwriting but refuse to reveal a specific meaning, carrying an aura of hidden knowledge that triggers a sense of profound mystery.

2. The Trace of the Hand: In a digitized world, physical mark-making emphasizes the bodily presence of the artist’s hand, leaving a permanent monument to a fleeting human moment over an old, discarded record.

3. Sacred Interruption: By interrupting the natural decay or forgotten status of a vernacular artifact with a fresh creative act, the artist sanctifies the object giving it new life in the realm of art.

Ultimately, asemic overwriting rescues utilitarian artifacts from the trash heap of history and elevates everyday vernacular paper into timeless relics of visual poetry. But once the document has been transformed into a relic, how does the human brain actually engage with it? How do we read a text that refuses to be decoded?

Next week, in Part 2, we will look at the biology of vision, the rhythm of music, and why looking at an asemic artwork is a radical act of slowing down time.

OK folks, the following is an unusually long article but I felt it could not be broken up becuase I think it needs to be read in one sitting for the reason that one thing flows directly to the next thing.

this is a follow up after Creative Intuition and the Mind Before Language

If you do a search on the Touchonian for the word intuition you will find a number of other related articles.

Intuitive Intelligence

I have often said for many years:

It is with intuition that a work of art is created and with reason that an excuse is made for its existence.

We are taught from childhood that intelligence is fundamentally linguistic. We imagine that human action follows a simple sequence.

Thought. Word. Deed.

First we think. Then we describe our thoughts through language. Then we act deliberately upon the world.

This model sits at the foundation of modern education and rational society.

But artists live inside another reality altogether.

For the artist the sequence is often reversed.

Deed. Thought. Word.

Something happens first.

The hand moves toward the canvas. A line is drawn. A phrase appears unexpectedly. A form emerges. The artist acts before understanding fully arrives.

Only afterward does reflection begin.

One studies the work. Patterns begin revealing themselves. Relationships become visible. The artist gradually begins understanding what intuition already knew before conscious thought had time to intervene.

Then language arrives last.

Description. Interpretation. Artist statements. Critical essays. Historical context. Explanation.

In other words, reason does not create the work.

Reason arrives afterward attempting to explain what intuition has already accomplished. This reveals something important about the nature of creative intelligence.

There are entire forms of knowing that exist prior to language itself. Language is merely a crude tool of translation.

Artists spend years cultivating sensitivity to these invisible territories. They learn to perceive balance without measurement. They sense rightness without explanation. They recognize tensions, rhythms, harmonies, relationships, and subtle internal necessities for which language has no adequate vocabulary.

This may explain why art is so often misunderstood by the larger culture.

Modern society places enormous value on forms of intelligence that can be measured, tested, verbalized, peer reviewed for consensus and rationally explained.

But the artist works inside forms of intelligence that resist explanation altogether.

The studio becomes more than a place where objects are made.

It becomes a laboratory for another deeper form of consciousness.

A place where one learns how to perceive before language begins naming experience.

Perhaps this is why the arts are so difficult to justify within modern systems of education.

We continue measuring intelligence by what can be explained.

But artists remind us that some of the deepest forms of human knowing arrive long before words ever appear.

The hand often knows first.

The mind catches up later.

And language spends the rest of its time trying to explain what intuition understood from the beginning.

One of the great difficulties in speaking about artistic intuition is that language itself is poorly designed to describe what intuition actually is.

We commonly imagine intelligence as something that happens through thought. We assume understanding emerges through reasoning, analysis, logic, and language itself. We are taught that consciousness proceeds in orderly sequence.

Thought. Word. Deed.

Yet the artist lives much of life in another territory entirely.

There exists a form of intelligence operating prior to language, prior to conscious reasoning, prior even to the mental partitioning required for thought itself.

We call this intuition.

But even the word intuition immediately creates misunderstanding because language forces us to imagine intuition as a distinct thing, an isolated faculty that can be defined and examined.

The reality may be quite different.

Intuitive intelligence appears to operate in a continuous state of flow.

It has no obvious beginning or end.

It resembles an ocean more than a collection of objects.

The artist enters this field constantly. While working, perception moves fluidly between countless subtle relationships. Balance, proportion, tension, rhythm, movement, harmony, dissonance, weight, internal necessity, rightness.

All of this is perceived simultaneously.

There is no sequence.

There is no verbal reasoning process.

There is direct participation.

Language functions very differently.

Language requires particulating experience.

It must break the seamless continuity of reality into separate conceptual pieces that can be communicated and understood.

It names qualities.

It establishes categories.

It creates sequence.

It imposes logic.

It divides continuous experience into manageable fragments.

In this sense language resembles scooping water from the ocean.

The ocean itself remains whole.

But language can only remove temporary fragments and hold them separately for examination.

This is both the power and limitation of language.

Words do not grasp reality itself.

Words point toward reality.

Language circles experience endlessly while never fully possessing the thing it attempts to describe.

In this sense language is always beating around the bush while never grasping the bush itself.

Artists understand this intimately.

Much of creative practice happens inside forms of awareness that resist verbal explanation altogether.

This may explain why artists often struggle when asked to explain their work.

The difficulty is not lack of understanding.

The difficulty is translation.

The work emerged from direct participation inside a field of continuous intelligence.

Language arrives later and begins carving the seamless whole into fragments that can be socially communicated.

The artist learns that making and understanding are not the same event.

Creation happens first.

Reflection follows afterward.

Description comes last.

This may explain why the deepest artistic knowledge is often impossible to teach directly.

Artists are not simply learning how to make objects.

They are learning how to remain present inside forms of intelligence that exist prior to thought itself.

Perhaps intuition is not a mysterious faculty at all.

It is our most fundamental form of knowing.

And language, remarkable as it is, may simply be our imperfect attempt to explain what we already know in silence.

The Uncarved Block

In the Tao Te Ching of the Taoist tradition, the uncarved block (pu, 樸) points toward precisely this condition of undivided wholeness before conceptual partitioning occurs.

The Taoists understood this long ago through this image of the uncarved block. The uncarved block represents reality before intellectual division and particulation has taken place.

Before categories exist.

Before names exist.

Before thought begins breaking the seamless whole of direct experience into separate conceptual pieces.

Language itself is a carving instrument. The moment we speak, we divide reality into fragments. We assign boundaries. We create distinctions. We separate one thing from another so the rational mind can begin organizing experience into understandable structures.

This is useful.

Civilization itself depends upon this process.

Yet something is lost in the carving.

The whole disappears.

Direct experience becomes fragmented into concepts.

The Taoist reminds us that reality itself remains whole long before language begins dividing it into manageable parts.

This is why artistic intuition remains so difficult to describe. The artist often works in direct relationship with the uncarved block. In moments of deep creative flow there is no verbal reasoning process unfolding.

There is no internal explanation.

There is direct participation.

The hand moves.

Perception responds.

Balance is sensed.

Relationships emerge.

The work reveals itself.

Only later does thought begin carving understanding from the experience.

Then language arrives and carves still further. Explanation begins. Description follows. The artist statement appears. The critic attempts interpretation.

But the original act itself emerged from somewhere prior to all of this.

The artist’s deepest task is learning how to remain close to the uncarved state. To trust forms of intelligence operating before thought begins dividing the world into pieces.

Civilization teaches us how to carve.

Art teaches us how to return, even briefly, to the wholeness that existed before the carving began.

Toward a Phenomenology of Artistic Consciousness

The artist lives closer to reality before it collapses into language.

Modern physics tells us something extraordinary about the nature of matter. At the quantum level, reality appears to exist simultaneously as wave and particle. In its wave state there is continuity, possibility, distributed potential. No fixed location. No isolated object. Only under observation does this fluid field collapse into a measurable event. A particle appears. Something strangely similar may occur within consciousness itself.

Intuition seems to operate as a continuous field of awareness.

There is no sequence. No isolated conceptual units.

Perception moves fluidly among countless relationships simultaneously. The artist experiences this regularly while working.

One enters flow. There is no deliberate reasoning process. There is direct participation inside a continuous field of becoming.

Language functions differently.

Language behaves like observation itself. The moment language enters, the continuous field begins collapsing into conceptual fragments.

Names appear. Categories form. Sequence emerges.

Logic begins organizing experience into discrete understandable units. In this sense language particulates reality. It transforms continuous experience into separate conceptual objects.

This is why creativity often disappears the moment analysis begins too early. The wave collapses. Flow disappears. The mind begins measuring rather than participating. Artists understand intuitively the necessity of remaining within the uncollapsed state for as long as possible. Creation requires staying inside possibility before thought begins reducing experience into fixed forms.

The deepest work of the artist is learning how to remain longer inside the wave state of consciousness itself.

Language, explanation and interpretation come later downstream.

Creation begins where language has not yet arrived.

The Taoists understood this through the image of the uncarved block.

Physicists glimpse it through wave-particle duality.

Artists simply encounter it daily in the studio.

There exists a form of knowing prior to thought. A state where experience remains whole before consciousness begins carving reality into pieces small enough to name and measure.

Chronos, Kairos and Intuition

Modern life trains us to think in Chronos. Chronos is measurable time. One moment follows another. One task leads to the next. Progress is understood through sequence, efficiency, and accumulation.

Chronos counts.

It measures.

It organizes.

It proceeds logically from cause to effect.

Language itself belongs largely to Chronos. Words unfold sequentially. Thought moves through ordered progression. Reason depends upon linear structures that can be followed step by step. But artists often work inside another form of time entirely.

Kairos.

Kairos is not measured time. Kairos is recognized time. It is the sudden awareness that countless unseen circumstances have converged into a moment of perfect readiness. It cannot be calculated. It can only be sensed.

The painter knows when the composition has arrived.

The musician knows exactly when to enter.

The poet feels the precise weight of a single word.

The sculptor senses when one more touch would ruin the balance.

The martial artist recognizes the opening instantly.

No calculation is involved. Calculation is too slow, it forces you to miss the moment. There is only recognition and response. This suggests something profound about intuition itself.

Intuition is not irrational it is trans-rational. It is an extraordinarily sophisticated awareness of convergence operating beneath conscious reasoning.

Reason moves sequentially.

Intuition recognizes wholeness.

Chronos asks what comes next.

Kairos recognizes when everything has aligned.

The artist lives constantly inside this field of intuitive timing.

A work of art does not emerge simply through technical execution.

It emerges through countless acts of recognition and response.

When to act.

When to wait.

When to stop.

When to trust.

When to let the work remain unfinished.

Civilization teaches us to count.

Art teaches us to recognize.

Wisdom itself lies in learning how to move freely between both worlds.

Chronos builds the structure.

Kairos reveals the moment.

The rational mind counts the steps.

Intuition recognizes when the dance has already begun.

The Birds of Imagination

There can be no final explanation.

This is the central difficulty in speaking about intuition, creativity, direct experience, or any state of consciousness that exists prior to rational thought.

The problem is not simply that language is inadequate.

The problem is structural.

Rational language belongs to a different order of experience than the reality it attempts to describe.

We continue trying to explain trans-rational states of being through rational systems of explanation.

But this is like attempting to capture wind inside a jar.

The more carefully we explain, the further away from direct experience we move.

Hence, Rule #23 of the International Post-Dogmatist Group: ‘Shut up and paint.’ (or whatever other creative thing you are doing)

This is why philosophy, poetry, mysticism, art criticism, and spiritual teaching all rely so heavily on metaphor and silence.

Metaphor does not explain experience.

Metaphor circles experience.

It gestures.

It points indirectly.

It creates resonant conditions within the mind of the listener.

The hope is that something unspoken may suddenly become recognized.

We are always beating around the bush hoping to get the birds of imagination to fly out.

This may be the real function of language.

Not explanation but evocation.

Words do not carry truth directly.

Words create the possibility that truth may reveal itself inwardly. Words are merely pointers.

The artist understands this intuitively.

A painting does not explain itself, the painting itself is it’s own explanation.

Music does not explain itself.

A poem does not explain itself.

Art does not transmit understanding through rational sequence.

It creates conditions in which direct recognition may occur.

This is why the deepest experiences of life remain largely beyond the capacity of language.

Love.

Beauty.

Presence.

Wonder.

Grief.

Silence.

Awakening.

Creation itself.

Language circles these experiences endlessly. Yet the experiences themselves remain untouched and unreconciled by description. There is no final explanation because explanation itself belongs to a smaller world. Words continue moving around the perimeter while reality itself remains whole and undivided.

Perhaps wisdom is simply learning to stop demanding that language fully grasp what can only be directly lived.

And yet we continue speaking.

Not because language can finally capture the truth. But because somewhere in the circling, if we are fortunate, the birds of imagination suddenly rise from the bush and for one brief moment we glimpse what words themselves can never fully say.

That moment is everything.

RELATED:

Art Starts at Home: Living by Default vs. Living Deliberately

Every artist knows the quiet, persistent hum of the inner calling. It is the quiet voice that urges you to pick up the brush, type out the scene, or hum the melody. Yet, society offers a much louder, pre-written script: get through school, secure a stable job, set up a household, pay your bills, and prepare for retirement. Along the way, you find someone to love, avoid suffering as much as possible, and fill the gaps by playing around on your phone. You know - the basics to get as comfortably as possible from cradle to grave.

This tension creates a defining choice for every creator: will you live your life by default, or will you live life deliberately?

Living by Default: The Comfort of the Script

Living by default means accepting this standard societal blueprint without questioning if it fits your soul. For an artist, this path is safe, predictable, and deeply suffocating.

When you live by default, you prioritize external security over internal expression. You might convince yourself that household duties, a day job, or family expectations mean you lack the time or permission to pursue your art seriously. You relegate your deep calling to a part-time hobby at best.

The danger of the default life isn’t failure; it is comfort. It is a slow, numbing process where the inner calling is gradually drowned out by routine. But for true creatives, that inner calling never dies. If an artist’s creative flow is thwarted in their own house, they will feel unfulfilled and gradually become unhappy. Ultimately, that quiet resentment and unexpressed grief works against everyone in the family.

Living Deliberately: The First Condition

To live deliberately is to wake up and consciously decide to shape your reality around your creative truth. The very first condition of this path is the audacity to claim your nature as an artist. You must commit to building a life around that core identity, treating the practice not as a weekend distraction, but as a fundamental way of life.

However, this initial threshold is where many would-be artists stumble. In the early phase, a profound wave of worry often surfaces:

• The Fear of Non-Acceptance: Anticipating skepticism or pushback from a society that values predictable, conventional tracks.

• The Confidence Deficit: Lacking the internal certainty to claim the title of “artist” before a public body of work or a market track record even exists.

• The Missing Blueprint: Realizing there is no pre-existing template or clear model for a creative lifestyle. Each individual’s path is unique.

Entering this phase means stepping onto an ambiguous path that must be uniquely designed by your own hands. It is entirely natural to look at the blank canvas of a creative life and feel paralyzed by the lack of directions. Every deliberate creator must navigate this initial wilderness of uncertainty before finding their footing. Yet, once you anchor yourself in that internal clarity and commit to it, the outside world - and your immediate environment - begins to adjust to it.

The Routine of Commitment: Building Trust in the Early Years

For an early-stage creator, establishing a firm studio routine is more than just a tool for productivity - it is a vital anchor for the entire household. In the early years of a creative path, those around you may struggle to understand your trajectory. Without a traditional boss, a timecard, or immediate commercial validation, your practice can easily look like a passing phase or an unpredictable whim to onlookers.

This is why establishing concrete, daily habits is the most powerful language an artist can speak to their family. By showing up to the studio or the writing desk at the same time every day, you demonstrate serious, undeniable practice.

Routines provide a tangible structure that your loved ones can see, respect, and rely upon. They need to trust that this creative pursuit is a permanent, non-negotiable reality of how life will proceed forward. Once that trust is established, family members can stop worrying about the ambiguity of the path and begin to accept and adjust to its rhythms.

Ultimately, your creative practice may or may not become a full-time commercial profession and often doesn’t. But for the true artist, it is undeniably a serious vocation - a deep, internal calling that must be followed regardless of outside validation. Daily discipline is how you honor that vocation while building a bridge of functional predictability for the people sharing your roof.

The Collaborative Household: From Tolerance to Partnership

Once routine establishes structural predictability, the home can transition from a place of mere tolerance to a truly collaborative household. An art family does not simply stay out of the artist’s way; it actively integrates the operational realities of the creative life into the shared domestic engine.

In a collaborative household, the heavy administrative, organizational, and emotional weight of sustaining a creative practice is no longer carried by the artist alone. Instead, family life and studio life merge into a functional partnership.

Whether it involves a partner helping manage logistics, coordinating schedules around studio time, or honoring the physical spaces dedicated to output, the household adapts. This intentional alignment shifts the studio practice from an isolated, solitary struggle into a shared household narrative. When the domestic unit acts as a supportive team, the creative current moves forward with far less friction.

Turning Mundane Routines into Spiritual Practice

However, even the most cooperative home is prone to the natural fragmentation, noise, and sudden demands of family life. If an artist believes that creation can only happen when external conditions are absolutely perfect, they will inevitably default to not creating at all.

Living deliberately requires the capacity to transform mundane, everyday domestic routines into a conscious extension of your spiritual and creative practice. The creative current does not have to stop when you step away from the canvas or the manuscript.

By anchoring yourself in simple, disciplined daily rituals - such as a silent morning walk, a focused moment of meditation, or keeping a minimal daily journal - you maintain a constant state of internal awareness. This shifts your creative perspective entirely. The search for beauty is no longer about locating a perfect, isolated object; it is about refining your internal capacity to remain deeply present, open, and attuned amidst the inevitable chaos of the everyday grind.

The Art Family: Normalizing the Creative Rhythms

When these layers of routine, collaboration, and mindfulness converge, they fully manifest the “art family”. In this environment, creative activity is completely normalized as a baseline fact of everyday life.

Think of how naturally a household accepts sports gear, rigid practice schedules, and loud game-day cheers if a family member is a sports fan. If art is an important element to a family member, everyone else accepts it as a simple fact of their collective reality. When the practice is out in the open rather than hidden away, life goes much better for everyone.

Creating an art family means:

• Accepting the Mess as Home Decor: Allowing wet canvases, manuscripts, or specialized tools to occupy shared spaces just like sports equipment or books.

• Weaving Practice into Routine: Normalizing the sight, sound, and presence of ongoing creation so family members never view it as a selfish intrusion.

• Fostering a Culture of Deep Pursuits: Recognizing that this setup applies to anyone driven by a deep inner compulsion - whether they are musicians, writers, poets, or people compelled by fitness, gardening, nature, or history. A inner calling is a calling no matter what form it takes.

The Universal Truth

While the creative path is uniquely ambiguous and frequently discouraged by a world obsessed with the grind, the core truth remains universal. Anyone who feels a deep compulsion to pursue a topic in depth must claim it.

The transition from a default life to a deliberate life is a daily choice. Every morning, the world invites you to slip back into the default track - to consume rather than create, to conform rather than express. Answering the inner call requires radical responsibility. It asks you to brave the vulnerability of being misunderstood by those who prefer the comfort of the script. But on the other side of that fear lies a life designed by your own hands, lived entirely with purposefulness and intention.

This is a continuation from the last article Masters of Perception

We Are Building Tomorrow

Take a moment and look around you.

Everything you see, everything that structures your daily life, was created by people who lived before you.

The chair you are sitting in. The building you occupy. The roads you drive on. The systems you depend on. The language you use. The books you have read. The technologies you touch hundreds of times a day.

None of this appeared out of nowhere or by accident.

All of it began as thought, imagination, experimentation, and the determined effort of individuals who were, whether we call them this or not, engaged in acts of creation.

You are living inside the future designed by people from the past.

I have often told people exactly this when they ask what I do all day in the studio.

I tell them, “I am building your future. Somebody has to do it.”

They usually laugh.

But I am completely serious.

Society has a strange habit of misunderstanding the role of artists.

Artists, more properly ‘creatives’, are often treated as though they exist on the edges of civilization, as though art were a luxury, a hobby, a decorative afterthought attached to the serious business of life.

But this could not be further from the truth.

The entire human world is built upon acts of creativity.

Before there was architecture, someone imagined shelter. Before there was writing, someone discovered symbols. Before there were machines, someone imagined movement that did not yet exist. Before there were nations, laws, philosophies, universities, medicine, music, mathematics, and language itself, there was imagination.

Creation always comes first.

Artists, whether painters, writers, musicians, designers, inventors, architects, engineers, filmmakers, poets, or philosophers all participate in this same ancient activity. They shape the world before the world knows what shape it is becoming.

Most people spend their lives adapting themselves to the world they inherit.

Creators spend their lives quietly altering what future generations will inherit.

This is why the creative life matters so profoundly.

The artist is not merely making art. The artist is participating in the ongoing construction of civilization itself.

Even when the work appears small, when recognition never comes, when the work is misunderstood.

The future is always being assembled somewhere.

A child reading a book today may build a different world tomorrow because of something they encountered in your work.

An idea planted now may become visible a hundred years from now.

Most creators underestimate the scale of what they are actually participating in. We imagine we are making objects. In truth, we are participating in the architecture of reality.

Civilization itself is a cumulative work of imagination.

What we call culture is simply creativity made durable across time.

The great mistake is to think that the future is something that happens to us.

The future is being built continuously by those willing to imagine what does not yet exist.

That has always been the work of artists and the creative community.

So, when someone asks what you are doing with your life as an artist, perhaps the simplest answer is the most truthful one.

I am building the future.

Somebody has to do it.

I read a great article by Amie Mcnee who is talking about things that I am always writing about on the Touchonian. I left a comment on her article that is the seed for this article.

Amie’s Substack

I will not apologise for how I prioritise my life

Read more

3 months ago · 864 likes · 145 comments · Amie McNee

Masters of Perception

There is something young artists rarely understand when first stepping into the creative life. It is not enough to make the work. You must also learn how to protect the conditions under which the work can be made.

When I was in my twenties, long before I had any real success as an artist, I recognized something important. Society becomes nervous around people whose lives do not conform to familiar patterns. If people cannot easily categorize what you are doing, they begin asking questions. If your daily life does not resemble what they recognize as normal productive behavior, they unconsciously begin applying pressure.

So I made a decision.

I decided to manage perception.

I set up a studio and from that moment forward I treated my artistic life exactly as though I were employed in a conventional profession. Every morning I went to work. I left the house with purpose. I arrived at my studio - sometimes a back room, sometimes an old garage at the back of the property, sometimes room an old farm house someone let me use or an old pump house that I converted to a studio, or a basement, sometimes just a nail on the wall to hang a canvas on or a kitchen table for making collages. I remained unavailable during normal working hours.

As far as the world was concerned, I had a job.

If someone asked what I was doing, I simply said, “I’m working.”

Sometimes people would ask, “Working on what?”

I would answer, “I’m building your future. Somebody has to do it.”

Naturally this confused people.

“What do you mean?”

I would say, “Look around you. You live in a world created by people from the past who were designing this future. I am one of those people designing the next future.”

The beauty of this strategy was that people stopped interfering.

If someone asked me to help them move furniture or run errands during the middle of the day, I answered exactly as any working professional would answer.

“Sure. I usually get off at five, although sometimes I have to work overtime. I’ll let you know.”

And that was enough.

People respected what they believed they understood.

At the time I supported myself partly as a painting contractor, which helped reinforce the illusion. Nobody really knew what I was doing all day, but they saw work clothes, tools, signs of industry. The appearance of productive labor is often more important to people than understanding what kind of labor it is.

This taught me something important about the creative life.

Artists are not only makers of objects. We are architects of perception.

To survive as an artist often requires creating protective boundaries around your life. Sometimes this means learning to become invisible. Sometimes it means refusing to over explain yourself. Sometimes it means allowing others to believe what makes them comfortable enough to leave you alone.

Mystics have understood this for centuries.

They move through the world quietly, blending in, wearing ordinary clothes, carrying ordinary responsibilities while protecting an inner life that others neither understand nor need to understand.

Most people, whether they realize it or not, organize their lives around one central aspiration.

They want to be seen by others as normal.

Artists live differently.

We are serial creators. We build futures that others cannot yet recognize. We spend our lives bringing into existence things whose value may not become visible until much later.

In a strange way, artists are masters of perception management.

We understand better than most that human reality itself is partly constructed through belief, expectation, assumption and social agreement.

Sometimes protecting your creative life is less about making art and more about carefully designing the conditions that allow the art to continue.

The work is not only the art.

The work is building the life that makes the art possible.

Life Must Bend Around You

After my recent article You Could Drop Me Anywhere, a thoughtful subscriber left a comment suggesting that I had made the artist’s path sound far too simple.

She described her own journey over fifty years of making art.

Bartending. Puppeteering. Putting herself through art school. Earning a BFA. Then an MFA. Selling large paintings that briefly funded work toward a PhD in philosophy of art until the money ran out.

Teaching full time.

Maintaining a full-time studio practice after school, evenings, and weekends.

Building a life where employment allowed the freedom to make work independent of market demands.

She reminded me that many artists, particularly women raising families, do not simply arrange life around art in any easy or obvious way. And she was absolutely right.

I realized afterward that perhaps I had not expressed myself clearly enough. When I say the artist’s path is simple, I am not saying it is easy. I am saying the underlying principle is simple.

Simple and easy are two entirely different things.

The simple part is deciding.

You accept that this is what you are. You stop negotiating with yourself about it. You stop imagining alternate lives. You stop treating your deepest nature as optional. From that moment forward, life begins organizing itself around that central fact. Or perhaps more accurately, you begin bending life to organize itself around that central fact.

That process can be extraordinarily difficult.

I know this firsthand.

I raised two stepchildren, seven foster children, and three of my own children while building my life in the studio around side hustles of all sorts. But it always is build around supporting my studio practice. There were years I woke up every morning at four o’clock because that was the only quiet time available before everyone else woke up. There were years I worked late into the night after the house was asleep. There were years of poverty so severe that I genuinely wondered how I would pay rent or house payment or medical bills or keep the utilities running through the winter sometimes living in one room of the house with a space heater. There were years of exhaustion. Distraction. Failure. Moments when I was not fully present for those around me. Moments I regretted.

And like many artists, I often went to sleep hoping simply that I had done no harm that day and did, not the best, but the best I was capable of and resolving to do better tomorrow.

So no.

I am not speaking from a place of comfort. I am speaking from decades of adaptation.

When people hear me say that artists should organize life around their work, sometimes they imagine I am talking about ideal circumstances.

I am not.

I am talking about orientation.

There are artists who bend themselves entirely around life. Then there are artists who slowly insist that life itself bends around the continuation of the work.

This does not mean selfishness. It does not mean neglecting responsibility. It means refusing to abandon your own nature. It means understanding that sidelining what you fundamentally are is not a sustainable strategy for living. Then you are just a ghost of yourself.

One way or another, life and those around you must bend around you as much as you bend around life.

The circumstances will never be ideal. There will always be obligations. Children. Bills. Jobs. Relationships. Illness. Exhaustion. Disappointment. But that is everyone’s life. The world will never clear a perfect path for your creative life. So the work becomes learning how to make it simple. How to use your creativity to build your life around your creativity.

Not easy.

Simple.

You remove unnecessary complexity. You stop romanticizing struggle. You stop waiting for ideal conditions. You build systems. You protect time. You wake earlier. You need less. You learn to make the process stupid simple.

Because in the end, the artist is not someone who makes art when conditions allow. The artist is the person who quietly keeps rearranging conditions so the work can continue.

Courage matters. Persistence matters. Determination matters. Authenticity matters.

But underneath all of those is something even deeper.

Purposeful relentlessness.

The willingness to keep bending reality until there is enough space for the work you are here to do.

It is simple.

I never said it was easy.

You Could Drop Me Anywhere

Not long ago, I was talking with an artist friend I have known for years who has always expressed a kind of amazement that I have managed to build a relatively successful life as an artist.

From his perspective, this seemed improbable and a bit of a mystery.

I did not come from a privileged background. There was no inherited wealth. No family connections. No institutional support structure waiting for me. Along the way I had a family to support, children to raise, responsibilities that required attention beyond the studio. From the outside, I suppose it could appear that somehow favorable circumstances aligned around me and allowed me to continue while other artists struggled.

At one point he asked me a question that stayed with me.

He said something to the effect of this:

“What if everything suddenly changed? What if you found yourself in a completely different situation, somewhere obscure, less fortunate, without the circumstances you have now. Wouldn’t you just give up?”

I thought about it for only a moment.

And I said no.

No, because he was misunderstanding something fundamental.

He was assuming that my life as an artist has been the result of circumstances.

But circumstances were never the determining factor.

Based on how I am, you could drop me anywhere and I would figure out how to make my way.

This is something I think many people misunderstand when they look at the lives of artists or anyone who has managed to sustain a long practice over decades.

Observers often see outcomes.

They see exhibitions, sales, recognition, publications, opportunities.

And naturally they begin constructing explanations based on external conditions.

They imagine luck. Timing. Connections. Privilege. Favorable circumstances.

But what they do not see is disposition.

They do not see the underlying structure of mind and temperament that existed long before any visible success arrived.

For some people, making art is something they do when conditions allow for it. For others, making a creative life is simply how they move through the world.

These are very different things.

The first depends upon circumstances. The second grasps and reorganizes circumstances.

I have never thought of myself as someone pursuing success as an artist. I simply became organized around continuing.

START, CONTINUE.

I wake up and work. I adapt as necessary. I adjust to changing realities. I learn what is needed. I keep moving forward.

If everything disappeared tomorrow, I would do exactly what I have always done. I would begin again from wherever I happened to be standing.

I suspect this is one of the great dividing lines between people who imagine themselves becoming artists and those who have fully accepted the identity of being one.

The artist is not someone who makes art when life permits. The artist is someone who arranges life itself around the continuation of the work.

External success is always downstream and uncertain.

It may come or it may not. Conditions may improve or deteriorate. Recognition may appear or disappear. Money may come or go.

But none of those things determine the continuation of the work.

The real question is much simpler.

If everything around you changed tomorrow, would you still continue? Could you adapt? Could you begin again from nothing? Could you reorganize yourself under entirely different circumstances?

For me, the answer has always been clear.

You could drop me anywhere. And I would figure it out.

Because the real work was never learning how to become successful.

The real work was becoming the kind of person who continues forward regardless.

Creative Intuition and the Mind Before Language

One of the great misunderstandings about creativity is the assumption that thinking is the primary engine behind artistic work. We are taught from an early age that thought precedes action, that logic organizes experience, and that language is the mechanism through which understanding takes shape. Yet artists know from lived experience that this is often not how the creative process unfolds.

Creative intuition exists upstream from language.

Before there are words, before explanation, before the conscious arrangement of ideas into coherent structures, something else is already at work. There is a movement toward form that emerges from a place deeper than deliberate reasoning. The hand reaches before the mind fully understands why. A painter makes a mark that feels necessary without being able to explain its necessity. A musician hears an internal progression before theory has had time to name what is happening. A writer follows the rhythm of a sentence before fully understanding what the sentence is attempting to say.

This suggests something important about the nature of artistic intelligence. There are forms of knowing that operate prior to language.

Human beings tend to privilege language because language is what can be shared, debated, analyzed, and taught. Logical reasoning has become the preferred instrument of modern education precisely because it produces measurable outcomes. Yet much of what governs human life operates outside these structures. Instinct, emotional recognition, embodied memory, pattern sensitivity, aesthetic judgment, and intuitive response all function in ways that cannot be reduced entirely to verbal explanation.

Artists spend their lives cultivating sensitivity to this territory.

In the studio, one often discovers that too much conscious thought can interfere with the work itself. The analytical mind becomes a kind of interruption. The constant need to explain, justify, or evaluate too early can sever the fragile connection to whatever deeper current is trying to emerge. The work asks first for receptivity, not interpretation.

This is why experienced artists often speak about trust.

Trusting the hand. Trusting the eye. Trusting the strange attraction toward a certain color, gesture, rhythm, material, or compositional tension without yet understanding why it matters. Very often understanding arrives later. Sometimes years later.

The artist learns that knowing and understanding are not always simultaneous events.

In many ways the creative act resembles listening more than thinking. Something presents itself in subtle form. A possibility appears. A direction begins to suggest itself. The artist responds. Through repeated engagement over years, this sensitivity becomes highly refined. What outsiders sometimes call talent is often simply a deeply cultivated relationship with forms of intelligence that operate beneath conscious reasoning.

Language enters later as translation.

After the work is made, critics, historians, curators, and audiences begin attaching language to what has occurred. This is useful and necessary. Language allows ideas to circulate socially. It helps preserve knowledge and build cultural continuity. Yet the artist knows that the language describing the work is always secondary to the direct encounter through which the work originally emerged.

There is always more happening in art than language can account for.

This may be one reason why the arts are so difficult to teach within conventional educational systems. Institutions favor what can be measured, articulated, standardized, and repeated. But much of artistic development involves the gradual refinement of perception itself. It involves learning to recognize subtleties for which language has not yet evolved sufficient vocabulary.

The artist becomes fluent in experiences others may not even know exist.

This should remind artists to take their own intuitive life seriously.

When working, there is often pressure to explain too quickly. To rationalize decisions. To force the work prematurely into concepts that feel intellectually defensible. Yet some of the strongest work emerges precisely when one allows the deeper intelligence of intuition to lead while thought follows behind as a secondary companion.

Thinking is an extraordinary tool.

But creativity begins earlier.

Somewhere beneath language, beneath explanation, beneath reason itself, there exists a field of perception quietly organizing experience long before words arrive. Artists live close to this source. Through practice they learn to trust its movements.

Perhaps the artist’s true discipline is not learning how to think better.

Perhaps it is learning how to listen more deeply to the intelligence already present before thought begins speaking.

Share

Respect the Work

There is a misunderstanding that sometimes develops when artists begin to understand that creativity itself is the true source of abundance.

Once we recognize that money, fame, recognition, and external success exist downstream from the creative act, it can be tempting to dismiss these things altogether. We may begin telling ourselves that presentation does not matter. That professionalism is somehow a compromise. That concern for craft beyond the act of creation itself represents a concession to the marketplace.

This too is a mistake.

The artist must remain close to the source.

But staying close to the source does not absolve us of responsibility toward what emerges from it.

In fact, the opposite is true.

The deeper our relationship with creativity becomes, the greater our obligation to care for what has been given to us through that relationship.

A work of art deserves respect and the first one who must respect it is the artist themselves.

Not because it might sell or generate fame.

Not because others may validate us through it.

It deserves respect because it arrived through the mysterious generosity of the creative act itself. Something invisible became visible through our willingness to participate. Something that did not exist before now exists in the world.

This is not a trivial event.

To treat that process casually after the fact is to misunderstand our role.

The artist’s work does not end when the initial creative impulse is finished, when the poem is written, or when the sculpture leaves the studio table. There comes the question: Is this the best it can be? There is often another few things that can be done with care to insure that the work has been fully expressed with clarity and elegance.

Then there remains the work of stewardship.

How is the work photographed, documented, archived?

How is it framed?

How is it presented publicly?

The public presentation constitutes publication.

How clearly is it communicated to those who encounter it?

These questions matter deeply.

Not because they increase the likelihood of financial success or improve our chances of recognition, although they may.

They matter because they represent the final act of care. The work deserves to be seen under the best possible conditions. The viewer deserves clarity of intention.

There is a quiet form of generosity in professional practice.

When an artist takes the extra time to present their work properly, to photograph it well, to frame it carefully, to speak about it thoughtfully, to document it accurately, they are not serving commerce.

They are serving the work itself and they are serving those who encounter and interact with it. It is a form of communication and communicating deserves claritity of purpose and clarity of craft.

To labor for months or years bringing something into existence and then present it carelessly is a strange contradiction. It suggests that the artist values the act of creation while neglecting responsibility toward the thing created.

Craft extends beyond making.

Presentation is part of craft.

Documentation is part of craft.

Professional discipline is part of craft.

The serious artist understands that every stage of the process deserves attention. We do not polish the work for the marketplace. We polish the work because it deserves dignity.

The world downstream will do what it does. Some works will sell. Some works will remain unseen. Some will gather praise or scorn. Others will pass quietly through time.

This remains outside our control.

But what remains entirely within our control is the quality of our stewardship. The work has come through us. It has asked for our attention. It has borrowed our hands in order to enter the world. The least we can do is ensure that when it arrives, it arrives whole.

Not for money.

Not for fame.

But out of respect for the gift itself.

And out of respect for those who may one day stand before it and enter into conversation with what we have made.

The artist protects the source.

But the artist must also protect the work on its journey into the world.

These are not separate responsibilities.

They are the same act of devotion expressed in different forms.

Share

Today is my first day back in my studio after being on a seven week collage expedition. I exceeded my goal of making three collages on average a day for the whole forty-nine days I was gone.

Now to sort it all out and start making the next year’s worth of paintings!

Here is a new article that follows the last couple of related articles.

Creativity Itself is Abundance.

Journal Entry: Tuesday, June 23, 2026

It is perhaps the purest form of abundance we have access to. It arrives endlessly. It renews itself daily. It is generative by nature. It asks nothing from us except attention, willingness, and participation. For the artist, creativity is the spring from which everything flows. It is the source itself.

Money is something else entirely.

Fame is something else entirely.

These belong to a secondary realm downstream from the creative act. They are social artifacts generated by collective human systems of exchange, valuation, commerce, reputation, and desire. They are reactions created by others around the objects we make. They do not originate from us in the same way creativity does.

An artist may spend years producing extraordinary work in obscurity while another may accidentally find themselves surrounded by attention and financial success. Neither condition tells us anything meaningful about the depth or quality of the creative source itself.

Poverty and wealth exist downstream.

Obscurity and fame exist downstream.

The spring remains upstream.

The problem begins when the artist turns around and begins walking downstream in search of the source. This is the great confusion. When creativity becomes reduced to a strategy for obtaining money or recognition, the relationship to the work begins to distort. Anxiety enters. Calculation enters. Comparison enters. The work begins carrying burdens it was never meant to carry.

The artist starts asking dangerous questions.

Will this sell?

Will people like this?

How do I make something more marketable?

What is popular right now?

What kind of work gets attention?

These questions slowly replace the more essential question.

What is trying to emerge through me?

The artist who mistakes creativity for a vehicle toward fame or financial security eventually begins negotiating against their own source. They begin abandoning the mysterious territory where genuine discovery happens and instead start manufacturing outcomes designed to satisfy external systems.

This often leads to creative exhaustion.

The tragedy is not failure in the marketplace.

The tragedy is losing contact with the wellspring itself.

This does not mean money is unimportant.

This does not mean recognition has no place.

The world of exchange matters. Artists live in the practical world and must navigate practical concerns. But we must understand hierarchy.

Creativity comes first.

Always.

The work comes first.

The conversation between the artist and the source must remain protected.

Money, sales, collectors, galleries, institutions, followers, reputation, praise, criticism, obscurity, all of these are weather patterns forming downstream around the work after it leaves our hands.

We do not control the weather.

We tend the spring.

The healthiest artist understands that their true wealth has very little to do with income. Their wealth is found in remaining connected to an inexhaustible source of generative possibility. Every day they can enter the studio and discover something new. Every day they can continue the conversation.

That is abundance.

The rest is negotiation.

The world may reward the work generously.

The world may ignore it entirely.

But the artist who remains connected to the source itself never truly becomes poor.

Because the source remains endless.

And it is from that endless place that all meaningful work enters the world.

Share

Sour Grapes

There is an old expression about sour grapes that usually points toward resentment.

Someone sees another person possessing something desirable and, seemingly unable to obtain it themselves, decides the thing was never worth wanting in the first place. We know the story well. It is one of the quieter habits of human nature.

Artists are hardly immune.

Perhaps more than most, artists spend much of their lives in close proximity to the visible successes of others while privately carrying their own sense of disappointments, ambitions, frustrations, and unfulfilled hopes. It becomes easy to look outward and begin forming judgments.

Their work is overrated.

They succeeded because of connections.

The market is irrational.

Collectors have poor taste.

Often such observations contain truth.

But there is another way to think about grapes.

Under one set of conditions grapes become wine.

Under another set of conditions grapes become vinegar.

Neither is inherently better or worse.

Both have purpose.

Wine nourishes celebration. It gathers people together. It opens the atmosphere of communion, hospitality, abundance, and shared pleasure.

Vinegar has its own intelligence. It preserves. It cleanses. It sharpens flavors. It dissolves what has hardened over time. It corrects imbalance. It has an entirely different function.

Both begin from the same fruit.

This seems worth thinking about.

Human beings themselves undergo similar fermentation.

Artists especially live under conditions that slowly shape temperament over decades. The studio is not merely a place where objects are produced. It is also the vessel in which the self is gradually transformed by experience.

Years of encouragement cultivate one disposition.

Years of rejection cultivate another.

Years of solitude, financial uncertainty, obscurity, interrupted ambitions, failed exhibitions, dismissive criticism, unstable markets, neglected opportunities, and watching others advance while one remains standing still - all of this changes the internal chemistry of a person.

Something begins fermenting.

Yet perhaps the lesson is not that one should strive only to become wine.

That would be too simple.

There is a rightful place for sweetness and there is a rightful place for sharpness.

There are moments in life that call for generosity, celebration, openness, and the capacity to encourage others.

There are other moments requiring discernment, critique, preservation of standards, skepticism, and the ability to cut through illusion with a sharper edge.

The real question is one of proportion.

An artist can only offer what has been cultivated within them over time.

We are all growing under conditions not entirely of our own choosing.

The soil we were planted in.

The weather we endured.

The amount of sunlight we received.

The seasons of drought.

The hands that tended us, or failed to.

The accidents of circumstance.

The years spent waiting.

The long quiet periods where growth remained invisible.

Eventually something ripens.

And what emerges is precisely what those conditions helped produce.

Some artists become expansive, generous, and nourishing to others. Their presence encourages life around them.

Others become increasingly sharp, corrective, critical, suspicious, carrying an acidity formed through accumulated disappointment.

Often both qualities exist within the same person.

Perhaps wisdom lies in recognizing this process while it is still unfolding.

To ask oneself quietly:

What am I becoming under these conditions?

What am I cultivating internally while I pursue this life?

Because in the end, every artist offers the world the harvest of their own vineyard.

We cannot offer what we have not grown.

The long work of an artist is therefore larger than making paintings, poems, music, films, or books.

We are also cultivating the interior atmosphere from which those things emerge.

Tend the vineyard carefully.

A good life, like good fruit, requires slow attention.

And in proper measure, both wine and vinegar have their rightful and proportionate place at the table.

We have come to the end of the London expedition and have set up the exhibit. We calculate about 300 works were made this week by the 14 of us in the crew. It has been a great week of discovery, camaraderie and immersion.

Today, Sunday June 21, the longest day of the year, is the exhibition by a gathering of Big Names in the international collage art community. Don’t miss your chance to catch a plane, train, bus or limo to come rub elbows with the world renowned celebrities who have been excavating the walls and charity shops of London to offer a unique snapshot of the city in collage art. Everybody who is anybody will likely be there or wish they had been.

Here is a continuation of the last article.

The Artist and the Problem of Being Seen

If it is true that wealth and fame both carry hidden dangers, then artists face a peculiar challenge.

Most artists begin with an inward impulse. Something within them insists on making, exploring, experimenting, discovering. In the beginning there is often little thought of recognition. The work itself is enough. The act of making satisfies something fundamental. The studio becomes a place of solitude, discovery, concentration.

But sooner or later another question arrives.

What now?

The work accumulates. The walls fill. The shelves fill. The archive expands. At some point the artist begins looking outward and wondering how this body of work enters the world.

And this is where things can get tricky.

The artist gradually discovers that making art and building a public art life are two entirely different activities.

The first concerns the work.

The second concerns navigating the social structures surrounding the work.

Recognition enters the picture.

Sales and the market enter the picture.

Galleries, collectors, exhibitions, social media, publicity, reputation, positioning, branding, professional identity blah, blah, blah.

And quietly, almost without noticing, the artist may begin shifting from making the work they feel called to make toward making the work they believe will produce a certain outcome.

Approval by imagined others begins entering the studio.

Expectation of success or failure begins entering the studio.

The invisible audience takes up residence in the mind.

This creates one of the central tensions of the creative life.

The artist must eventually learn how to participate in the world without allowing the world to take possession of the work.

This requires a certain inner clarity.

It helps to remember that recognition is not the purpose of the work.

Recognition is simply one possible consequence.

Income is not the purpose of the work.

Income is one of the conditions that allows the work to continue.

Even reputation itself must be understood carefully.

A reputation is merely a story other people tell about you. It does not necessarily correspond to who you are or what your work actually represents to you.

The danger is subtle.

Once the artist begins constructing work around imagined reactions from others, the center of gravity shifts outward.

The artist begins living inside projected assumptions.

What will people think?

Will collectors like this?

Will this strengthen my position?

Should I repeat what has sold before?

Will this increase visibility?

And without realizing it, one begins organizing one’s life around maintaining an image rather than pursuing discovery.

The artist has quietly become an employee of their own reputation.

There is another possibility.

An artist can consciously decide that the primary responsibility is to remain in right relationship with the work itself.

But this raises an important question.

How does an artist know what “right relationship” actually means?

Every artist is different.

Some seek beauty.

Some seek truth.

Some seek experimentation.

Some seek cultural influence.

Some seek spiritual inquiry.

Some seek mastery of craft.

Some simply feel compelled to make because making itself feels inseparable from being alive.

Because artists pursue such radically different aims, each artist must eventually identify what serves as their own internal orientation point.

Their north star.

A north star is not a goal in the conventional sense.

It is not fame.

It is not money.

It is not recognition.

It is the deeper principle that helps the artist determine whether they are moving in alignment with what matters most.

For one artist, the north star may be honesty.

The commitment to making only what feels deeply true.

For another, it may be curiosity.

The desire to continually explore unknown territory regardless of outcome.

For another, it may be service.

Using art as a means of contributing something meaningful to others.

For another, it may simply be freedom.

Protecting the ability to create without compromise.

The important thing is not what the north star is.

The important thing is knowing that it exists it is a point of orientation.

Without one, the artist becomes vulnerable to external forces.

Markets begin dictating decisions.

Audience expectations begin shaping choices.

Trends begin replacing instinct.

The artist slowly loses orientation.

But when the artist understands their north star, decisions become clearer.

Should I pursue this opportunity?

Does it move me closer to what I fundamentally value?

Should I make this work?

Does it reflect what I actually care about?

Should I accept this compromise?

Will it preserve or distort the deeper reason I began making in the first place?

The north star becomes a form of internal governance.

It allows the artist to engage with the world while remaining anchored internally.

This requires thinking differently about success.

Success may simply mean constructing a life that allows uninterrupted continuity of practice over decades.

Success may mean reducing dependency on systems that force compromise.

Success may mean living modestly enough that one retains freedom.

Success may mean building relationships with collectors, galleries, and audiences while understanding that these relationships support the work but do not define the work.

In this sense the artist must become a strategist of lifestyle.

The question is no longer simply how to make art.

The deeper question becomes how to construct a life in which art can continue indefinitely.

This often requires confronting one’s own assumptions.

Many artists secretly carry inherited ideas about success.

The fantasy of recognition.

The fantasy of discovery.

The fantasy of sudden arrival.

The fantasy that external validation somehow confirms internal worth.

But perhaps the wiser artist understands something simpler.

The work itself is the center.

The process itself is the path.

The real achievement is not becoming known.

It is becoming capable of sustaining one’s practice across an entire lifetime.

After all, what does the artist actually want?

To become famous?

To become wealthy?

Or simply to remain free enough to continue doing the work that gives meaning to one’s existence?

These are not the same thing.

Perhaps the healthiest position is this.

Let the world do what it will.

Let people think what they think.

Let markets rise and fall.

Let reputation take whatever shape it takes.

Meanwhile, return quietly to the studio.

Protect the conditions of practice.

Remain loyal to the work.

Remain loyal to the principle that guides the work.

Build a life spacious enough that external forces do not distort internal direction.

In the end, the artist must understand something very few people understand.

You are not building a career.

You are building a way of being.

And the work is simply the visible trace of that life being lived fully.

The Price of Being Seen
Journal Entry: June 19, 2026 - 7:44 AM

There is an old phrase that slips so casually through our culture that we rarely stop to examine it.

The rich and famous.

At first glance, it sounds perfectly natural, as though these two conditions belong together. Yet the phrase conceals an assumption worth noticing. Being rich does not mean one is famous. Being famous does not mean one is rich. The two states are entirely independent. And yet, in the imagination of society, they have become paired together as though they represent the final destination of success itself.

Why?

Perhaps because modern culture has quietly convinced us that a successful life requires two things - material abundance and public recognition.

To have much.

To be seen.

And yet I have increasingly wondered whether both conditions carry within them a peculiar kind of loneliness.

The wealthy often become separated from ordinary life. Wealth creates distance. The world begins being seen through the filter of money. Relationships become uncertain. Motives are difficult to read. People no longer meet you first. They encounter your resources, your possessions, your status. The money enters the room before you do.

The individual slowly disappears behind the fact of being wealthy.

Fame creates a different but equally strange condition.

When many people know your name, very few actually know you.

They know fragments. They know your work, your reputation, your public image, your controversies, your interviews, the stories others have told about you. They know a version assembled in their imagination, often without ever encountering the living person behind the image.

In this sense, fame transforms a human being into a public object.

One becomes distributed across the minds of strangers.

And here lies the paradox.

The ordinary person sometimes feels invisible because nobody notices them.

The famous person often feels invisible because nobody sees beyond the projection.

Visibility and invisibility begin to exchange places.

This may explain why so many who achieve great wealth or fame eventually begin retreating from public life. What they seek is something the rest of society takes for granted - the ability to simply exist without interpretation.

To walk through the world without being reduced to a symbol.

Artists know something about this tension.

For years, perhaps decades, we work in relative obscurity trying to bring our work before the world. Yet if recognition finally arrives, a strange reversal can occur. The public begins paying attention to the mythology surrounding the artist rather than the work or the artist themselves.

The artist becomes a brand.

And a brand is a peculiar prison because it no longer belongs to you.

It belongs to the public imagination of others.

I sometimes think modern life increasingly turns human beings into abstractions. We become profiles, identities, categories, reputations, public performances. We spend enormous effort trying to be seen while slowly forgetting that being seen and being known are entirely different things.

Perhaps true freedom lies elsewhere.

Perhaps the deepest success available to any person is neither wealth nor fame.

Perhaps it is the simple ability to move through life fully present, quietly doing one’s work, unconcerned with becoming an object in the minds of strangers.

There is a curious irony hidden in all of this.

The more visible we become to the world, the easier it is for the world and even we ourselves to lose sight of who we actually are.

And perhaps the greatest luxury in life is not wealth.

Perhaps it is anonymity.

The freedom to remain fully human.

The Atmosphere You Carry

Every artist works inside an atmosphere, though it is rarely acknowledged directly. We tend to think of atmosphere as something external - the studio, the city, the cultural moment, the state of the world. And all of that has its influence. It would be naïve to think otherwise.

But there is another atmosphere at work, one that is more immediate and more decisive.

It is the atmosphere you carry within you.

An artist may enter a quiet room and feel restless, or walk into chaos and remain composed. This is not accidental. It reflects a deeper condition, a rhythm that has been established through habit, attention, and the way one has learned to meet experience.

Once a rhythm is formed, it begins to shape perception itself.

What appears as good luck or bad luck, a favorable situation or an obstructive one, often reveals itself differently depending on the rhythm you are inhabiting. The same set of conditions can either support the work or derail it. Over time, it becomes difficult to separate what is “out there” from what is being generated from within.

This is not about control. It is about coherence.

The body offers the most direct entry point into this understanding. When the body is at ease, breathing evenly, circulation steady, something opens. Thought becomes clearer. Attention steadies. Ideas begin to gather rather than scatter. There is a natural receptivity, a sense that what is needed can arrive.

In this condition, inspiration does not feel like something hunted down. It feels more like something allowed.

When the rhythm shifts, the change is immediate. The breath shortens or becomes irregular. The body tightens or over-activates. The mind follows. Thoughts begin to fragment. One idea interrupts another. The sense of direction dissolves into urgency.

This is the same pattern you can observe in children at play.

They begin in a state of focus, absorbed and imaginative. Then energy rises, laughter grows, movement increases. But at a certain point, the rhythm tips. The play accelerates beyond its own center. Excitement turns into agitation. The same energy that was joyful becomes unmanageable and destructive. Soon enough, it collapses into exhaustion and overwhelmed emotions.

I saw this many times with my own children and when they ended up becoming overwhelmed I would give them a ‘magic hug’ as I would call it, where I held them close and did slow rhythmic breathing and told them to follow my breathing until they recovered themselves. It worked every time and once they saw that it worked they regained their composure in just a few minutes.

It is a complete cycle of rhythm, visible in a matter of minutes.

The artist is not so different, only more subtle.

There are moments in the studio when the work deepens and everything feels aligned. There are moments when production increases, things are finished and the work moves outward into the world. And there are moments when the rhythm slips into acceleration without focused direction, a brain-storm if you will, when the work begins to scatter and nothing quite holds.

What matters is not avoiding these states entirely but learning to recognize them early enough to respond.

Sometimes the response is as simple as returning to the body.

Slowing the breath. Letting it become even. Allowing the physical system to settle before attempting to correct the work itself. This is often more effective than trying to “think” your way back into clarity. The body leads, and the mind follows.

There is a quiet authority in this.

You begin to understand that your rhythm is not only shaping your work, it is shaping your environment. The tone you carry influences the space you occupy. It affects how you approach materials, how you respond to setbacks, how you engage with others. Over time, it even influences what kinds of situations you tend to encounter and sustain.

This influence is subtle, but it is not small.

A chaotic rhythm can spread quickly even through a whole community. It moves through conversation, through reaction, through the invisible signals people exchange without noticing – a look, a body posture, an insinuation. It amplifies itself, creating polarization and conflict. One unsettled state feeds another. Before long, an entire environment can feel unstable often without any clear external cause.

The opposite is also true.

A steady rhythm has a stabilizing effect. It does not need to impose itself. It simply holds its shape. Others can feel it, often without knowing why. It creates space. It allows things to settle. It invites clarity.

For the artist, this is not an abstract idea. It is part of the work.

To cultivate a rhythm that supports both perception and action is to develop a form of quiet power. It is not dramatic. It does not announce itself. But it accumulates, day after day, in the way the work is approached and carried forward.

In the end, the question is not whether the world influences you.

It is whether you have developed a rhythm strong enough, and subtle enough, to meet that influence without losing your own center.

Recently I encountered the academic term autoethnography, a method of research in which one studies broader cultural realities through disciplined reflection upon one’s own lived experience.

It struck me immediately that artists may have been engaged in a form of this practice all along, though in ways largely unrecognized by modern culture.

Artists as Researchers of Consciousness

There is an interesting contradiction at the heart of contemporary culture.

We tend to reserve the title of researcher for scientists, scholars, engineers, economists, and those engaged in fields where knowledge can be measured, articulated, tested, and repeated. Research, in the modern sense, is assumed to belong to disciplines where outcomes can be verified and conclusions defended through language and evidence.

And yet there exists an entire class of human beings who spend decades engaged in equally rigorous investigation, though their field of inquiry remains largely unrecognized.

Artists.

The painter who has spent forty years refining sensitivity to color relationships is conducting research.

The musician who has developed an intuitive understanding of rhythm beyond conscious calculation is conducting research.

The poet who has spent a lifetime listening closely enough to language to hear subtle emotional resonances hidden within ordinary speech is conducting research.

The collage artist who senses formal relationships between disparate fragments before the rational mind has assembled an explanation is conducting research.

The difference is this:

The artist is researching forms of knowledge for which we have developed very little language.

This presents a strange problem.

In the sciences, language follows discovery. A phenomenon is identified, studied, named, categorized, and integrated into a larger body of understanding. Specialized vocabulary develops so that increasingly subtle distinctions can be communicated among practitioners.

But in the arts, vast territories of experience exist for which language remains astonishingly underdeveloped.

Artists know this instinctively.

We regularly experience moments of intuitive certainty while working, moments in which something feels profoundly right long before we can explain why. We make decisions based on sensitivities that have been refined through years of looking, arranging, listening, adjusting, responding, discarding, and beginning again.

Much of what we know cannot be adequately explained.

The hand knows.

The eye knows.

The nervous system knows.

The deeper intuitive faculties know.

Yet because this knowledge often resists language, those outside artistic practice frequently remain unaware that anything sophisticated is happening at all.

This creates an unfortunate imbalance in the culture.

Modern education has become increasingly oriented toward measurable outcomes, standardized testing, quantifiable results, and forms of intelligence that can be demonstrated through explanation. Knowledge that cannot be easily verbalized tends to be marginalized.

The arts suffer greatly under this condition.

Not because the arts lack intelligence.

Because much of artistic intelligence operates beneath or beyond ordinary language. Beyond consensus. And creative people like the freedom of this territory just beyond the reach of explanation. It is the fluid realm of imagination just out of the reach of language.

One might even argue that artists are among the great undocumented researchers of human consciousness.

For centuries artists have quietly explored perception, ambiguity, intuition, emotional resonance, symbolic association, memory, pattern recognition, embodied knowledge, and states of heightened attention.

Artists explore the wilderness that others attempt to domesticate.

They have been conducting investigations into the subtle architecture of experience itself.

But unlike science, the discoveries made in artistic practice rarely enter formal systems of knowledge.

A painter may spend fifty years developing extraordinary perceptual intelligence and leave behind thousands of works demonstrating profound insight, yet much of what was learned during that lifetime disappears with the individual because the knowledge itself was never translated into transmissible language.

This may partly explain why artists themselves often struggle to explain their own work.

The public frequently encounters art with little understanding of what they are actually experiencing because it cannot be easily converted into language. But language is the map not the territory.

The artist has developed fluency in a language that remains largely invisible.

Perhaps this is where the concept of autoethnography becomes interesting.

In academic research, autoethnography refers to the practice of using one’s own lived experience as a means of understanding broader cultural phenomena.

Applied to artistic practice, one might imagine a kind of studio autoethnography.

A disciplined inquiry into the internal experiences of making.

Not autobiography.

Not personal confession.

But serious observation of what actually occurs within consciousness during sustained creative work.

What subtle decisions are being made?

What internal faculties are active during flow states?

How does intuition operate?

What kinds of awareness develop through decades of practice?

What exactly is artistic or aesthetic intelligence?

Artists themselves may be among the only people capable of investigating these territories directly.

The difficulty, of course, is that as soon as language becomes too attached to these subtle processes, something essential risks being diminished or obscured. Creativity depends on direct encounter not description.

There is mystery involved.

There are forms of knowing that function precisely because they are not fully conceptualized.

The musician who overthinks loses the rhythm.

The painter who intellectualizes too early interrupts the process.

The poet who explains everything too quickly destroys the ambiguity from which meaning emerges.

Perhaps this is why artists have historically accepted the mystery without demanding explanation.

But culture pays a price for this silence.

The education system continues to undervalue the arts because it cannot measure what the arts are actually doing.

Those who are not visually, musically, or aesthetically fluent often remain unconscious of the sophistication they are encountering.

And so the artist continues quietly doing advanced research in territories civilization has barely begun to map.

Perhaps one of the tasks before artists in the coming century is not simply to continue making work.

Perhaps it is also to begin developing better language around the extraordinary forms of intelligence artistic practice cultivates.

Not to explain away the mystery.

But to help others recognize that something far more profound is happening there than culture presently recognizes or understands.

The artist has never merely been making objects. Something much deeper is at play.

The artist has always been exploring consciousness itself.

.