There are three important aspects of (art) mediation of the unconscious; authenticity, accuracy, and originality. I have exhaustively investigated the first two in the past, but the third has been left unexplored since I feel like it hasn't been much of an issue thus far. I'm not sure if it is "an issue", per se, but I cannot deny the fact that this topic continues to bother me, as I've been furthering the methods for mediation of unconscious. Before going into the question of originality (of what I precisely mean by it), I should perhaps first lay out the duality of this whole paradigm. There are two "sides" for the artistic endeavour: subjective and objective. I have mentioned this before in this blog, but it bears repeating and clarification. With the subjective side, I mean in this instance the fully personal aspect - that is, what it means for the subject (artist himself) to convey things, and what he or she may gain from it. In this "subjective regard" the outside world is wholly meaningless. In other words, if the subject was to be fully confined into this subjective realm, this whole topic of "objective (side's) originality" would not be an issue, since there would be no-one around to care for it. Sadly, we do not live in a fully solipsistic subjective world, but are coupled with an objective existense with other observers, and this has its own implications and repercussions, such that it cannot be ignored - at least if wanting to convey something for others to see, which this very blog post has already done by existing in an accessable online space. Thus, we come into the objective side, where the issue lies. Before going into it though, this duality could be put into a handy column for clarity's sake; 1.Subjective (The author's perspective) 1.1 Authenticity (Does the story / work of art follow inner authenticity?) 1.2 Accuracy (How accurately the unconscious / inner authenticity has been followed?) 1.3 Originality (Has the work truly stemmed from the unconscious?) 2.Objective (The audience's perspective) 2.1 Authenticity (Does the work seem authentic for the outside observer?) 2.2 Accuracy (How accurately does the work seem to represent the author's intention?) 2.3 Originality (Has the viewer seen/read similar works somewhere before?) Wherein we can reference the appropriate thing accordingly, and at least attempt not making this any more complex than it needs to be. So, if we go in order with the aforementioned terminology, it can be stated that, so far I feel like having established the subjective ground "enough" such that the Authenticity (1.1), Accuracy (1.2), and Originality (1.3) are not an issue insofar as to make them unbearable hinderances when attempting new methods and avenues in either visual arts or literature. Authenticity (1.1) and Accuracy (1.2) I have explored quite a lot in the past few years, beginning from the very first blog-posts. Subjective Originality (1.3) is a rather interesting issue, but not overly pertinent for this post, as I feel it is something more theoretical, and perhaps better left to be explored in the future. Now, moving on to the objective side where the more - shall we say - real-life issues lie. Not much affecting the process of creation itself, but it has the potentiality to hinder distribution for the outside audience. Starting from Authenticity (2.1), we can already see some fluctuation. The earliest stories - from the literature side - are no doubt authentic, stemming from a very honest place within the depths of shadow work... barring the later stylistical influences from Thomas Ligotti. On the visual arts side it is difficult to say whether I "borrowed" anything either knowingly or unknowingly up to this point. It is highly doubtful, since I have no learned background on technique or style, nor do I know any teachers or influencers - it is all very authentic, in other words, and any possible "links" to something pre-existing has been selected by the unconscious projection. However, when considering the very latest works, I have stumbled upon this dilemma, which is to do with Subjective Accuracy (1.2) and Objective Originality (2.3)... as seemingly, by following inner authenticity (1.1), I increase Subjective Accuracy (1.2) but forsake Objective Originality (2.3). So, starting from beginning of this process: when I begun noticing that technical skill with simple pen & paper was simply insufficient for conveying the intented effect, I took looking into "enhancing methods". This I have already explained in previous posts, where I mention the move into digital editing. I consider this a successful iteration, a natural progress (even though there were some initial doubts). Then, after having some success with it, I still considered the combined "power" of pen & paper + digital editing to be insufficient. Something more was clearly needed. Thus I took into AI alteration, which added a layer of both authenticity and accuracy (1.1, 2.1, 1.2, 2.2) and aided in bringing the vision into fruition, and all was well for a while.
However, even after this, it was all still maddeningly inadequate, and I was finally forced to move into taking something directly from the world and altering it... and so we finally come into the true topic of this post, which is: for the outside observer, does it matter how the art is created? Is it simply the end result that anyone cares of, if the intention is honest and the end result is both subjectively and objectively better by all observable metrics - even if some of "true originality" is sacrificed by using already existing material? In short, is this new method more accurate and authentic, even if it sacrifices some of "true" originality? Does the overall "experience" for both unconscious mediation and objective quality increase by using this new method? Does it allow for creation of better mirrors for the psyche? I do not know. All I can do is to continue experimenting and see what comes up. For Sophia.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
A.K
Gothic fiction novelist Archives
July 2023
Categories |