The Moment Of A Father's First Glimpse At His Son's Most Physically Awkward Day In All Of Pubescent Years

Reason Is A Standard That You Hold Onto Others

jesus...

A sketch I did from the back of a van while on the road. Somewhere about Seattle.

Coyote Remaster

My friends in Bravo Utah are remastering and re-releasing their 'Coyote' release, and asked me to do an alternative image for the cover. Really stoked on it.

On a separate note, my image-a-week resolution has not been going so well, unfortunately. I'm about 7 weeks behind. I've been very preoccupied, as all people are, with life's many hurdles and hoops to jump through. In addition I've been getting back on the music horse - playing drums in the band Prophet, Said I and going on a 5 week tour with my friends in Fight Amp, for whom I will be filling in on the drums.

This will be my last post for a few weeks. I'll be back in mid-October, if I don't see you on the road.

PhilaMYTHOS & BAM POW VOL 2 / week 15 - John Frum (update)

Here's my submission to the PhilaMYTHOS exhibition & BAM POW VOL. 2 zine!

You can check this out at the PhilaMOCA gallery this friday, for the closing reception of PhilaMYTHOS, and be sure to pick up a copy of BAM POW VOL 2!

And here is an unused image!

week 19 - Consciousness Will Never End

Ah ya know, just experimentin':

week 18 - I Am At Home

week 17 - Sketch Book Pages part Two

I'm falling behind. Lay off me.

week 16 - 50 Cent is a Fucking Dork

I’ve recently discovered that 50 Cent is planning on writing a YA Novel. And I’m actually a little upset about it. I figured I would kill two birds with one stone, since I’ve actually wanted to make fun of 50 Cent for a little while now. This may seem immature to virtually everyone reading this, but I have good reason. Follow this train of thought: Lending a hand to children’s education is in no way cause for complaint – unless your idea of education is actually going to hurt. Let’s look at 50 Cent’s accomplishments and messages thus far.

50 Cent is a fucking dork. He has consistently dealt blow after blow upon black culture with his deleterious lyrical messages. He released an album called “Get Rich or Die Trying”. Are you fucking kidding me? As if there could be a worse bit of advice to spew out into black culture. As said in the linked article above: “…rappers have a real opportunity to sway the opinions of kids”. And even more, black culture in America has primarily manifested itself in music. I would ask if 50 Cent knows that “superficial” is a pejorative term, but I actually don’t think he’s even aware of the word.

Showing kids that it is acceptable to die to be rich is vapidity by definition. And even with all ethics aside, promoting the idea of excess material wealth in America at this time, or any time after the banking collapse of 2008, is like saying “I desire to make the same mistake twice.” Material gluttony is the destruction of capitalism, and any other system which depends on cooperation. 50 Cent is obviously not the only perpetrator of this crime.

I understand the plight of the black American is very much centered on economic stability. It’s more than a symbol of status; it’s a symbol of black progress in society. And if white Americans had a history more acquainted with oppression (cultural, racial, economic, etc.), we’d certainly have more of a proclivity for getting as far away from poverty as possible – and we’d discover this proclivity through culture. After all, economic stability is a real, tangible solution to the problem of economic oppression, a matter of dollars and cents, really - whereas things like cultural, racial, and social matters have much more illusive answers that will probably follow suit.

So if the racial harmony can begin, most simply, by fixing economic disparity, where is the harm in black culture fixating on material wealth? The harm is in the fact that this fixation does not typically manifest itself in legal forms of commerce. The problem is that a lack of opportunity within black America results in high-risk ways (drug deals, theft) of material acquisition - which is ultimately encouraged by culture.

In addition, 50's lyrics are beyond consistently violent, bigoted, homophobic, and altogether crass. He has also ‘tweeted’ that if you don’t eat pussy, you should kill yourself. Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not a part of the whole idea that our reputations and careers should be linking to our social networking doings. I don't think that anyone should be scolded for breaking from politically correct standards now and then. But it is aligned with his character as is consistently revealed in his lyrics. Lyrics are thought out – they represent you. Who you are as an artist represents you as a person. There is no escaping that.

So why attack a sort of irrelevant artist and an album that came out 5 or 6 years ago? There are more relevant pop artists who I’d much rather make fun of – like Lady Gaga and Lil’ Wayne – simply for the sake of balance, deflating hubris, and taking a stab at their ridiculously overrated artistic credibility. But the axe has to come down on somebody, and the book was the final straw.

I should make the point is amidst the day’s socially insatiable thirst for unconditional respect - it may be more important than ever to denounce things that you do not approve of. Depriving something of its oxygen or focusing on the positive is sometimes not enough to make the problem go away. Especially if no one knows that it’s okay to disagree. If you think something is stupid and even more, is totally problematic, fucking say so. Opinions are safe in numbers. Be the first one to be honest about something controversial and you will invite honesty and healthy contrast into the discussion.

Speaking of disagreement I should probably add that 50 Cent’s book is to be on the subject of anti-bullying. I don’t even understand what the big deal about bullying is. It is only because of websites like Facebook that the cruelty of children is brought back to light for parents who must have forgotten about it. Kids are cruel - kids fight. Big deal. That’s how they learn how to interact and develop social grace and sensitivity. Only a few decades ago, people used to fight a lot more often – and it was not so much a cause for concern. Take a second to ask yourself – is a conflict really so bad? Don’t forget that you are the one who decides how bad it is. You should be proud to have a child that experiences conflict – that’s what gives a child backbone. Mark my words – if we keep trying to take children away from exposure to negativity we’ll have a generation of kids made of fucking gelatin – mentally and physically. It is this childish reaction to negativity from parents, which is in turn forcing us to limit basic freedoms so that we never have to face the same challenge twice. Keep it up, parents – you’re making challenge extinct. It’s too bad that our freedom to react to perceived injustice is antithetical to the very idea of freedom itself. Childhood is not supposed to be a walk in the park – it’s supposed to be hard. Fights are not a big deal. Let’s not forget; we are animals and we are very capable of fighting and killing.

I want to put these opinions out there because I think people don’t make fun of shitty artists enough. Granted – art is a far cry from the enemy – but art is educational and informative. For kids who feel detached from their K-12 education, culture and art are where they learn. But when we have entire demographics being spoon fed a homogenized slop of purely formulaic, totally obvious art, with vacuous, uninspired and trite messages, it seems like a good place to begin to say; “hey, everyone - this sucks.” Now this is most likely simple stuff for anyone who is, in reality, reading this is. But there are plenty of hypothetical people that I imagine (haha) realizing for the first time “wait a minute, it’s okay to think celebrities are wrong?” Yup. It’s also good to know that in today’s culture of infinite access, immediacy, and banality of pop culture - celebrities are probably wrong. That’s probably why they’re celebrities.

And finally, 50 Cent is writing a bullshit book. I don’t care if he may or may not be more mature. I don’t even want to imagine the kind of advice 50 Cent thinks is illuminating if he made it this far without understanding the most basic lessons I learned in high school. There are plenty of other great YA novels out there. Please, politely dissuade people from buying 50 Cent's book. He doesn’t need your money, and nobody needs his bullshit life lessons.

week 15 - John Frum

Will post more, later. But these are close ups from a new image.

week 14 - Prints & Revisions

I'm now two weeks behind! But it's all good. I just finished a print I'll be selling on June 11th (12 - 6pm) at the Paradigm Handmade Market. The other dates for the bazaar are as follows

Sunday, June 12th (12-6pm)
Sunday, July 10th (12-6pm)
Sunday, August 14th (12-6pm)

I'll also have a giclée print of my Hue of Worth image, which I just revised. Here's what the revision looks like.

week 13 - The Day We Learned That Belief Is Self Destruction

Well, The Rapture day is come and gone. And all of the awesomely corny jokes are still filing out. I think it's great that people, or at least the portion of society that I am exposed to, were so incredulous to the whole idea. But unfortunately - others were not. And even more unfortunately - others were REALLY not.

But while the rest of the world just shakes their head at a small demographic (not even unanimously Christian) - I want to raise the question - why are we only shaking our heads at this religious prophecy and not at every single religious prophecy EVER? why aren't we laughing at belief?

Did we not realize that to believe in anything is equally as ludicrous as believing in the Rapture on May 21, 2011?

Religious belief, and it's justification as a virtue is what keeps people from listening - because believers believe that the challenge of faith in spite of any temptation is their rite of passage into heaven.

In this sense, the very definition that has long justified faith as a virtue is the very one which has come to prove beyond a doubt it's malign nature, just yesterday. The effect of religious belief is to hold, in spite of anything, that your belief is the right one. That's what is taught as righteousness - that faith is a virtue. This idea provides a unique armor for belief that has long held against rational attack.

But yesterday it was demonstrated quite clearly - by the victims of faith who abandoned their own lives - the actual rather than potential effect of belief on reality. And, not for the first time, but in maybe the most flagrant manner ever displayed - we all saw why if your god is telling you that you cannot listen, maybe it's time to jump ship.

NOT listening is NOT good.

The nature of a religious prophecy is such that since they are fueled entirely by belief - they will all be as completely irrelevant, irrational, and insane as the prophecy from yesterday. Their very nature says that they cannot be backed by evidence. And as time goes on, I believe that science will render them less and less compelling still. The lesson to be learned is that if you think that your belief is any more reasonable or relevant than the May 21st Rapture prophecy - you don't understand belief. And if your belief has a prophecy of similar nature, be prepared to defy reason just as the yesterday's victims have.

Yesterday many people were led astray by belief. People left their lives behind. People checked out of reality. Now, what makes them more wrong than anyone? Nothing at all. The only difference between them and anyone who believes is that they got the chance to live up to the prophetic demands of their faith. And if you think that these people simply picked the wrong belief, or chose the wrong reasons for their belief - I ask you; what is it that justifies any person's belief? The belief that we are brought up with depends utterly on the portion of the world and era which we live. There is NO way to decide which god or belief is right, and which god or belief is wrong. Long ago, polytheism was more popular than monotheism. But if we image a person today praying to the gods of a polytheistic religion (Ra, Poseidon, etc.), obviously their beliefs would be looked upon as ridiculous by virtually everyone. But really, those gods have never been disproven - it is only for the superficial fact that they have fallen out of favor that makes them at odds.

The other day my Mom was reading a story to my nephew about Egyptian gods - and she prefaced the story saying that we now know that such gods were false. Damnit Mom! Those gods - like any other gods are equally as credible as any around today! What makes Thor appear less likely than Yahweh? Popularity.

In a lecture someone once asked Richard Dawkins: "What if you're wrong?"

Dawkins responded "...There's no particular reason to pick on the Judeo-Christian God, in which, by the sheerest accident, you happen to have been brought up, and ask me the question 'what if i'm wrong?' What if your wrong about the great juju at the bottom of the sea?"

Why didn't yesterday's prophecy have too great an effect on the world at large? DISBELIEF. What if belief had it's way? What if everyone had just abandoned their societal posts - as that particular belief would have recommended? Theists have always bashed disbelief as something which isolates and disturbs people, and claimed that belief is something which lifts and connects people. Now we have glaring evidence that belief is self-destruction. I think it's reason to celebrate.

week 12 - How Can We Pretend To Be Puzzled About The Causes Of Conflict If We Understand The Unequal Distribution of Knowledge?

I was watching Conan the other night when they played a newly released video of Osama Bin Laden at his home watching TV. Conan prefaced the video saying that it reveals the simplicity of Bin Laden's lifestyle. The video that Conan aired however, was just a mockery, in which they dubbed in a roommate of Bin Laden's, trying to talk to Bin Laden and ask him questions. I forgot what the jokes were even remotely about, but it was the first time I had ever seen the video, and I thought that the premise of the unedited video was the same - just a video of Bin Laden sitting at home, vegging out and watching tv. So in my first encounter with the video I was mistaken into thinking that Bin Laden is strangely crude and lazy.

This is not exactly right though, as I understand now that in the video Bin Laden was browsing some sort of al-Qaeda news forum, or so I think. So Bin Laden is not as crude a figure as I thought the video was initially getting at - but still - the environment of the room does show the unrefined state in which he lived. And the concept still stands - this is the guy who leads al-Qaeda? The organization calling for global Jihad? Aren't these people supposed to be organized and informed at the least? How can he possibly be operating under informed pretenses while living like an ape?

But that's not what surprises me; no one is to be blamed for ignorance because ignorance is not a choice. It's astounding to think that we expect something more of those who cannot access the right knowledge. How can your ideals be pragmatic and sound if you have no access to the current world? It's no mystery why people act like lunatics when they are utterly misinformed! To me, the puzzling thing about circumstances like these are that we expect people to operate under a certain code of conduct despite having access to dramatically different (potentially rotten and fucking rancid) sources of information.

Digital with hand done type, 2 colors.

week 11 - private commission

This week I did a private commission. No image, sry.

This coming week I think I'll do two images to catch up for the one week where I did not post an image. They'll be weeks 12 and 13.

week 10 - Hue of Worth

The age-old cliché ‘the meaning of life’ is a beaten to death concept. Countless perspectives currently weigh in on the subject of life’s meaning. The complexity of the topic seems to baffle all contributors except a handful, who I think still misunderstand the point of the question. Now the topic is cluttered by contribution - you can’t discuss it without spinning off into a thousand tangents that simultaneously attempt to weigh in all conceivable viewpoints in an unbiased manner, and feel out defenses of the inquisitor. For the most part, I’m dissatisfied with even my favorite contemporary takes on the subject, which come from the philosophies of absurdism and existentialism. But frankly, I’m amazed that no one has stumbled upon the idea that maybe this subject is incredibly simple. Hints of inappropriate preconceptions still linger in even these freshest of ideas. We’ve got to discard them and start from the ground up if we ever want the answer. It is important to understand the discrepancies that follow suit when we attempt to compute worth – or anything that cannot be computed. We must sterilize this area of thinking and ward off unwelcomed guest, like determinism - and we have to dissolve certain ideas altogether such as divine purpose - to understand the purpose of the question. To begin our analysis of the meaning of life, I’ll do some correcting of some of our ideas about logical blind spots. Most of these misconceptions come from misunderstanding to limits of application, particularly in the realms of biology and physics. To sort the issue out I’ll introduce the concept of ‘mu’, and use it to classify these fallacies as ‘mu question’ or ‘mu answer’. All of this in order to dissolve our current idea of worth – which is tainted by antiquated ideals - so that we can build it back up free of fallacy.

-

Think about something non-existent.

-

Okay, good. Actually, that was terrible. You’re doing it all wrong. Try again.

-

Fuck. Still bad - just forget it. You’ll never get it because non-existence is unimaginable concept. Now try and grasp the idea of an unimaginable concept. Not great, but slightly better. There are things that, as humans, are off limits to understanding. Quantum physics is something that even experts on the subject admit to not really understanding; Art is claimed to be utterly subjective. Color is a philosophical chestnut that no one knows whether any two people view the same way; and biology shows us forms of perception which are unimaginable to humans (bats and dolphins use echolocation, birds use electromagnetism to perceive magnetic north, and many different animals see different wavelength spectrums of light). That you cannot assess any situation without the proper tools necessary to even imagine them should be obvious, yet we go on defining the indefinable. But it is no one's fault, because no one can perceive of their ignorance exactly, and if everyone asked everyone else to hold off on formulating any opinion until all prerequisite knowledge was had, there would be no such thing as opinion. So we take the plunge into opinionation because the pros outweigh the cons, but just how perilous this slippery slope is, is a topic deserving of volumes. There are plenty of non-applicables out there; understanding a few of them will help us understand that expanding on cognitive blind spots leads to further misunderstanding. This discourse concentrates largely on understanding the effects of applying non-applicables – or thinking paradoxically - and finally how everyone thinking paradoxically is affecting what everyone's thinking about.

-

In The Zen Of Art and Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig, there is a passage about the word ‘Mu’. I don’t have the book with me to quote, so ill paraphrase. ‘Mu’ is a Japanese word. It means something like ‘non-existent’, ‘non-entity’, or ‘non-body’. ‘Mu’ captures something about non-existence better than any concept in English – but its definition is also very wide. Mu can be a response, in which it can be interpreted as a deferral of the question – addressing the question as undeserving of a response, or that it should not be a question at all. Robert M. Pirsig, ibid, says it can mean something like ‘un-ask the question’. This word is appropriate here since we’re addressing ideas that have been formed where a mu response was necessary, because of a misunderstanding of the limitations within the concepts at hand. What a mu answer often results in is further questions, not answers. A mu answer is not a solution, but a temporary deferral. The next three examples, the time paradox, color, and non-existence, are harped on, yet not entirely understandable by organisms such as ourselves.

-

A time paradox is a product of faulty thinking, which results in some mu answers. The Back To The Future movies have built their entire plot upon this mu question. A time paradox would do something unthinkable, equating to the end of everything. That’s how we know it’s probably wrong - because we can’t even imagine the consequence! There are various scenarios drawn out to help us understand the impossibility of the time paradox, the most common of which is the grandfather paradox. I’ll just say this; the most practical and promising solution is Stephen Hawking’s theory that backwards time travel results in feedback, caused by the self-feeding time loop (similar to acoustic feedback) that would cancel the wormhole out. (Don’t quote me on this but I think he also says that instead of acoustic feedback, the feedback would be made of fire or some shit.) Sending someone back in time is futile for this reason because the time traveler cannot access the wormhole before feedback cancels it out. Even if Hawking is wrong, I can think of another dilemma for the time traveler; that time travel invariably results in dimensional travel in order to avoid a breach of physics when any affected item fails serve the purpose that it is been known to serve. For all intents and purposes, this means anything and everything. Any time traveling object will disturb the physics of the realm which is know to provide the circumstances that rendered its being possible – this is a problem because that object is known to come from those origins and the contradiction of those origins does not render them non-existent. They are still known and proven to have existed by the time traveling item’s presence – thus proving that the current dimension is a variant on the previous dimension. That being said; if we can prove the impossibility of created dimensions (not even dimensions in the traditional sense, but entirely separate existences, complete with identical laws of physics) we can prove backwards time travel impossible. If anything (a big if) - they will enter a wormhole to find themselves in another dimension with an entirely new set of physical laws and constants, which will certainly kill them, and- well you get the point. It’s just not possible. Either scenario has a slim enough that we can expect the heat death of the universe to occur before we ever see such a day. In addition to this, new research is adding to the impossibility.

-

Another closed system is Color. Color exists independent of objective perception. Outside of your own head, it is impossible to imagine how others perceive color. The sensations that cause color are objective events with numeric wavelength values, but the way our brains represent that wavelength is our own arbitrary sensation. This is not a claim that color and light are not real, just a matter-of-fact statement that color perception is entirely subjective. The color wheel can be turned on its axis and every color relationship remains intact to the individual. This is because there is no way to describe a color other than the association it has with objects that give it off. The sun, fire, light bulbs, oranges and bananas, are all things that have a similar wavelength of light – which we associate with the adjective ‘warm’. Where does association of ‘warm’ come from, though? It comes from the behavior of objects with these wavelengths in common - not from any sort of a priori knowledge. If what I see as ‘warm’ is spun on it’s axis to be represented by what-are-your ‘cool’ colors, it follows that my ‘cool’ colors will now be occupied by your ‘warm’ colors – and there is no way for either of us to detect differences because the perceptions have remained in perspective to each other since birth. Things that are look warm to me, are things that look cool to you. Nature looks green to both of us, but the perceptions that we receive to represent the green shades of nature could be anything. Warm is warm is warm – is orange is yellow is red. But orange, red, and yellow are only words use to label arbitrary perceptions of objective sensations. Your brain has no capacity to imagine what an insect sees as ‘ultra-violet’ – but an insect does in-fact see those wavelengths. Take a second to try and imagine the color ultra-violet. You haven’t the capacity to make up a new color in your head. Ayn Rand, in the Fountainhead, says something like ‘cut out a man’s eyes and he loses his ability to see, but destroy a man’s cognitive faculty for visual perception and he loses all ability to even conceive or remember vision’. Can you grasp the concept of not having the mental faculty for visual perception? This is the cognitive blind spot I wanted to point out. Now let’s keep staring into it for one last example.

-

Non-existence is an unimaginable concept. Actually I lied, I think. It’s hard for me to tell, because I don’t know what non-existence is – I can’t. That’s because the term ‘non-existence’ itself is fallacious. Instead, let’s try a different definition for non-existence – one that actually illuminates the issue. Non-existence is better described by this term: Zero differentiation. This is a better definition because our typical approach leads to an impasse. We assume that non-existence is just that which opposes existence, and that they both occur with no implications. We assume that existence is not a default state for life – and that we are fortunate to be here because non-existence could be just as likely. This is erroneous because neither state can just occur. They need to be made to occur. They are divisible occurrences that can be broken down into smaller elements. We could still exist in non-existence as some kind of anti-entity - maybe the anti-matter composition of ourselves – like some kind of archenemy from a comic book. That’s where the term ‘non-existence’ falls short, because it doesn’t write off, or even address the quality of variation. There is no intrinsic quality of existence or non-existence that allows for the possibility of life. That’s why existence has to be defined as non-zero differentiation, because even within non-existence differentiation causes existence. Existence cannot have an up-down/on-off relationship in comparison to non-existence – because existence is secondary to variation. That’s why I favor the terms non-zero differentiation or zero differentiation to existence or non-existence, because the latter are irrelevant and fallacious, and the former are real solutions to the problems the latter have caused. In fact, time is so problematic an element within the origin of existence, that it is currently being re-evaluated altogether. This in itself is an example of a mu concept.

-

New studies are coming out even today that suggest time may be an altogether fallacy. The idea of time has always presented an impassable obstacle in discovering the origin of existence, because our concept of time is more of a deferral, or even a conundrum, than an answer. Even if we trace time successfully back to the beginning, we end up at the same place we would without it, and that is: zero differentiation. We then need to replace it with a theory that explains differentiation independent of time – which I think is actually much more convenient. What if we discard it and replace it with differentiation? The previously linked article stresses that maybe spacetime is not so much about time as it is space; that is, what if matter is only undergoing variation in position or form? This also solves the conundrum that time travel may be impossible by suggesting that moments in time are not real moments, only variations on a single state, and that once a variation is gone it is inaccessible. I’m not alone in this idea.

-

Anyway, wherever differentiation occurs is bound to be existent. Any being capable of observing the seemingly perfect state of existence is secondary to the laws which are compatible to such a being’s observance. Zero differentiation does exist – in a state of non-existence. So by contrast, we exist, because of the non-existence of non-existence – or simply nonexistence. Non-existence is non-existent; therefore only existence is existent. Existence exists because of the impossibility of non-existence’s existence. Non-existence itself, is what makes our existence possible, by contrasting itself with existence, thus giving existence it’s own self in that it can be contrasted with the uncontrastable. However, in trying to analyze non-existence, you make it exist, by giving it differentiation from that which cannot be analyzed. So, quasi-non-existence (also known as the second of two components of variation) is in a state of perpetual expansion, because its contrast with existence gives it existence. Ergo, conceptually observable non-existence, or quasi-non-existence, is actually another rate of existence. It is possible to plug these twin-substances in, perhaps to the illusive dark matter and anti-matter that make up most of the universe. Perhaps they were the initial substances that give differentiation. Now we understand true non-existence, zero differentiation, for the impossibility that it is. Now let’s move from concepts which do not apply to biological, to concepts which do not apply to physical.

-

Perception is not applicable to the pre-life universe. There was no eye, no skin, no tongue, no ear, and most importantly, no brain in the pre-life universe. Perception is an evolved characteristic, which took billions of years to arrive upon the scene of our universe. This is a fact. For billions of years in our universe, there was no perception at all. Nothing was felt - no image was had – nothing was tasted or heard – there was not even such a thing as color - just a bunch of non-conscious bodies of energy, exploding and scraping together. Today, we can contemplate what it may have looked like back then, but our contemplation is only an event occurring at present. A big piece of the misunderstanding of our worth comes from a misapplication of what our universe is capable of.

-

The pre-life universe did not matter. This is inarguable. That is, it had no objects that decided what mattered. Some qualities are entirely perceived. It is not that existence only exists to the perceiver – because this is not true. But there are many qualities that an object can bear, simply by being thought of as the bearer of such qualities. For example, being thought of as wealthy does not just make you wealthy, because wealthy has ties to tangible possession. But being thought of as ‘great’ or ‘beautiful’ really does make you ‘great’ or ‘beautiful’ in the sense you are the recipient of such opinions. In the end, a beautiful person has only been such because they have been the receiver of such opinion. A hypothetical beautiful person is not beautiful simply because their beauty is not witnessed. There is nothing else which makes anything beautiful, since we are the creators of this concept. Sort of like Schrödinger's cat, if a beautiful thing does not exist, than it is not yet beautiful – it occupies a superposition in that if it ever was witnessed, it could be beautiful, but if it is not ever witnessed, it will never receive such opinions. Think of all the hypothetically beautiful things you can imagine, that are not yet beautiful simply because they have yet to be conceived. If you have ever been thought of as ‘beautiful’, then you have been ‘beautiful’. What else is there that grants us such qualities, other than a being’s decision? There is no way to tell any difference in two objects deemed ‘worthy’, because they both have instantaneous status as ‘worthy’ when they receive such opinions. This does not discount reason, which we use to compare our opinions to truth – it just says that a concept (the concept here is worth) defined by an entity (in this case, strictly humans) is interpretable only by that entity. Since nothing outside of humans (that we know of) can contest to that which we deem 'worthy', it is inarguable that any human individual's application of 'worth' (or any other human defined concept) is absolute. Those who define are inarguably those who define. That which is defined is inarguably defined by it's definers. To visualize the concept of receiving worth, think of organisms shooting out little laser-beams of opinion throughout space, at whatever they find worthy. It doesn’t matter how true or false, reasonable or unreasonable these opinions are. All that matters is that they go somewhere, and are received. Therefore, the recipients are inarguably worthy. If x organisms hold x opinions, all of x opinions weigh exactly the same in their status as an opinion. You cannot say that opinion ‘a’ is 95 percent of an opinion, while opinion ‘b’ is only 80 percent of an opinion - all opinions are 100 percent opinions. Cognizant organisms are the sole contenders in the arena of opinion. Entering the arena is not the object of existence. The universe works independent of ‘matter’. ‘Matter’ is strictly limited to those with the cognizant capacity for holding an opinion. When we think that nothing matters, we don’t often realize that nothing but ourselves are judging significance.

-

Worth is like color, but not nearly as subjective. It applies to all life just about the same, but it does not apply outside of life. Nor did it exist before us. It is a scientific fact that we are the universe iterated into a complex format that receives sensation and wrestles it into recognizable shapes so as to aid in replication. When we say ‘nothing matters’ or it comes from a fallacious misunderstanding of what matter and meaning apply to, and where they exist and what they are limited to. Though the illusion of insignificance is very complete with the modern realization that our physical scale relative to the universe is very minute – it is still just and illusion. There is no scale, especially not a physical scale to decide if our ‘worth’ has any relation to an interpretably sufficient or insufficient amount. The question; “is our ‘net-worth’ sufficient of insufficient’ should not be a question at all. Not only is it not-sensical, it is not non-sensical. It is neither appropriate nor inappropriate – it is non-existent – it is mu. There is no question because there is no asker of the question. It is impossible for man to ask this question, let alone answer it. The amount of meaning perceived by organisms is an independent scale with no ties to anything at all; like color. Analyzing the inanely tenuous connection between our physical scale relative to our universe, and our amount of worth relative to some kind of god-given-divine-worth, leftover from the influence of theism, makes about as much sense as comparing green to one hundred.

-

“How much is the number of green?”

“Not nearly enough.”

-

The problem is that we tend to personify inanimate objects, like galaxies and black holes, to which meaning does not take place. Celestial bodies are not judging us in terms of worth because cannot do so. The universe spent billions of primal years as a large chemical reaction with no set of senses to perceive them, and it does not bother the universe because the universe cannot be bothered – much like you before you were born, in the form of atoms from untraceable origins. Existence does not seek acceptance - we do. Meaning is a singularity occurring at the threshold of contemplation. Past that threshold is no necessity for opinion. That does not stop meaning from existing, nor does it dwarf the existent meaning; it only prevents interpretation, especially as an amount. It doesn’t matter how small meaning is in scale – it only matters that it is had at all. If a black hole had the capacity to form an opinion, yes, it might look at us as insignificant. But our tendency to place opinion in these objects comes from a misunderstanding of what the phenomenon of significance really is. Because physical space goes beyond our bodies into the universe does not mean that all things have to travel into the beyond. In our existence, the physical scale of the universe is immense – but our perceived worth stops in our minds – it doesn’t stretch out across space-time, like we think it does. It is limited, not in scale, but in application. We don’t have to wish our worth god-speed on it’s journey. It doesn’t go anywhere. All contemplation of worth outside of a brain is falsely applied contemplation.

-

What can we say about matter and worth? Things matters indefinitely – but that doesn’t mean that the highest and most important objective in existence is to seek what matters. It means it is our highest objective. Therefore, what matters absolutely is totally irrelevant, but what matters non-absolutely is relevant. As organisms that hold opinions – everything that matters to us, matters. Not universally, not indefatigably, but in only the way that it is. Any object or idea that receives notions of worth - is worthy – inarguably, and it is impossible to apply an opinion of amounts to this collective of thoughts. This is not to say that opinionation is worthless – just that is already included in this collective worth that we are attempting to analyze. The objective of existence is not to create objects that are worthy. Worth is an unintended bi-product of survival.

-

Survival leads, eventually, to cognizance - because cognizance is a strategy of survival - and cognizance leads to contemplation. What is ‘good’, to us, is always oriented in the direction that is synonymous with survival. Survival too, was not arrived at consciously, but just the only available option for continuity to ever be achieved. By definition – the rival of survival is doomed to non-survival! So when we arrive at the idea that nothing matters, of course that’s not true – because things obviously do receive notions of matter. The very idea that opinions are held – at all – leads to the indisputable realization that things matter non-interpretably. What is the meaning of life? In what is probably the world’s first correct application of its absolute most useless idiom - It is what it is.

-

Now that I’ve destroyed your preconceptions of worth, let’s get to the reconstruction. What I’m trying to clear up is our expansion on paradoxes. Time travel presents us with something intriguing to study, but may ultimately lead to a dead end, where we discover time to not be real. What I’m proposing is that we have attempted to study the meaning of existence to the point where we discover there is no intrinsic value to existence, freeing ourselves up to define value as we are and should be able to. Yes, I have said there is no intrinsic value to existence. This should be obvious. This acceptance is a denial of a divine worth. But that doesn’t matter (get it?) for the simple reason that because you do not enjoy the consequences of something is not an adequate reason to reject its premise. Such is the definition of an argumentum ad consequentiam. Even if we could not create worth (which I am about to argue is false) it wouldn’t change the fact that you need to recognize and not live in denial of the fact that there is no such thing as inherent worth! The essence of our belittlement is the understandable result of left over influence from superstition. The whole reason that worth is an issue is that we grow up invariably being exposed to the idea of divine purpose. It is not that we need or require this divine-purpose, it is just that we cannot unlearn the effects of its influence. There is truly nothing more inanely seductive than it’s concept. Though I am very much non-superstitious, I still sometimes feel the effects of my innate desire to personify events into beings. I cannot escape the easy-way-out that belief has offered. Of course we want to relate our troubles into human-like figures that can be reckoned with! But personification is the name of the monster that dwarfs our sense of purpose. Whether it be pondering divine purpose, or looking at our purpose relative to the scale of the physical universe, we are left feeling largely inadequate. If anything, the concept of divine purpose has robbed us of our desire or appreciation for self-assigned purpose - divine purpose degrades us into dependency. That we cannot interpret worth is not a testament to worthlessness – it is a childish sulking about what we felt like when personification of belief (god) was the only answer. Like a maturing young adult, Mankind is getting used to responsibility – and for the immature remnants of our mind – it’s a fucking drag. That we cannot go back to divine purpose, because it offers no solutions, because it is a mu answer, makes us feel inadequate.

-

That self-assigned purpose seems so petty is exactly my point. Struggling to realize the necessity of self assigned purpose is to be expected. It only seems this way because that it is not absolute or divine, has to be true. That it is strictly non-absolute means it has to be the private interpretation of the subject. And that we must create our worth in this life only adds to our significance (significance in reference to our man-made definition, because the is no alternative)! It is commonly said by philosophers and non-theists that ‘there is no purpose, so we must create our own purpose’. The main message of this discourse is to argue that for the aforementioned, it is not valid to call into question our purpose simply because it contrasts with a more "classic" view of purpose (the one offered by theism). There is no way to contest the application of a concept which we create ourselves. In no way, shape or form has there been ‘no purpose’ since the outset of life in the universe. This created purpose has always been, only never fully realized. I have shown that we are the ones who create the definition of worth, and so by doing inarguably define worth. We should not be concerned with applying this concept outside of it's application - there is no way in which it's application does not suffice.

-

We are currently speculating that ape took it’s most significant evolutionary steps towards become man when they began to walk upright, and that only when they freed up their hands to do their work is when they began to make tools, in turn stimulating their minds. They then fell into a brand new strategy, and the rest is history. We too can move past our current dilemma if we accept that there is no divine purpose, nor is there an interpretable collective purpose – freeing up our minds to create purpose – like our minds create color (which no one seems to object to). That there is nothing which lessens your power to create purpose makes you that much more significant. I don’t want to live in a world where significance is unconditional - I want people to be responsible. I want to live in a world of variation - the only way that worth can be deserved and earned. Fortunate for us, it is actually and observably detrimental to contemplate an alternative. Self-assigned worth is a journey more epic than the fucking Odyssey. Soak it up, baby.

If you’ve actually read all of this, thank you. Blogspot made me wrestle this format until i put all of the hyphens in the paragraph breaks.

week 9: Look - Find

Gotta look to find, baby.

Been interested in making some design-y art. I really like hand-doing type. More of this to come.

Some of the themes i'm interested in exploring of this year are figures, hand-done type, and getting back into dabbling in oil paint (for texture reasons), textures, patterns, and a few heavily topical concepts. Last night I had the idea of doing a really long topical discourse, with multiple images, kinda like these awesome Twingley Stories, except fictional. I may start that next week.

week 8 - sketch book pages

Weird week this week. Really busy with other things. My screen printing from last week ran into this wednesday, personal matters thursday and friday, and I played my first show in about 2 years on Saturday. To suffice for the lack of an image, here's a bunch of pages from some of my sketchbooks, which I've been meaning to post on my website for a while. Enjoy!

week 7 - april 9th and 14th prints

Screened printed for the first time by myself! That wasn't too hard. Pardon my lousy camera...

week 6 - Floor, Hawks, Fight Amp - April 14 @ FUC

This week my friends in Fight Amp approached me with the opportunity to do the poster for their April 14th show with Floor and Hawks, at the First Unitarian Church. Awesome!

I'm always proud to do any service I can for bands I approve of. The music industry is such a shit show today that you should literally be throwing money at your favorite bands/artists. No, seriously, if you download a band's album for free - go see them live and slip a 10 into the guitarist's pedal board. They'll find it later and happily buy themselves a burrito.



I will probably never understand artists who don't thumbnail and sketch before jumping into a finished image. I mean, sure, I guess there's a few mutants out there who can just wing it, but for the most part, if your not doing a ton of conceptualizing and premeditation, you're not gonna get whats in your head out of your hand.

I'll be selling these babies at the show. You can come out and pick one up.

Also, there will be only a handful of these posters given out at the Takehold (my old hardcore band), Fight Amp, Ladder Devils, Holy Hour, Deathbeds show, on April 9th - the week prior. In addition, the April 9th posters will be on sale - however, right now I'm thinking maybe we'll include a free issue of this poster with the April 9th poster. Two for the price of one - first come first serve.

week 5 - 'Smalls Falls' painting

This was the biggest painting i've ever done! It's a painting of a photograph, done on the wall of a friend's house.

Painting a photo is weird, but this was good practice. Here's a very low quality (no tripod, bad camera) time lapse video of the whole process:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwpzcPfCgQQ

The song is Baths - Maximalist. I'm saying it here because I couldn't even create text to lay over the video, because iMovie is the worst program ever. It honestly seems more like a Cinco product than something that is taken seriously. The 'export' button is labeled as 'share' in this program. What were they thinking? Just wrap your head around that decision for while.

Doing a poster next week...

week 5 - Catch up

I copped out. I spent this week taking care of business matters. I painted a cake (no, like, ON a cake) for a friend, I sent out a mailer, submitted two images to American Illustration, and did revisions for 'Unweaving the Uncanny', 'New Art', and The Takehold Reunion Show poster from last week, which I will now post again.

I guess this is super final version. Check my site to see the other revisions 'fya want.

week 4 - Takehold Reunion Show Poster

I don't know how I feel about this one. I think i've been looking at it for too long. Within the next month or so I might do some revisions before I print it. I was working on it for several hours, and then looking back on an older version, thought with the exception of a few things, it had gotten over-worked. So I threw out a lot of the changes I made for a rougher version. And I still can't even tell which one is better.. That's how you know you've lost your vision and It's time to take a break or just hang it up. No gumption traps here!

Also, I love doing hand done type. I can't really relate to fonts.. I feel like they are cold and inflexible. Also, I don't know much about design - but I really like that. I almost feel proud that I am doing things that might make designers disgusted. It's fun to destroy taboos.

My old band, Takehold, is getting together to play a show in April with a lot of much cooler bands. I'll be selling these at the show. Come by and pick one up. If you want.



Crystalization is a non-invasive way for people to understand what kind of developments can take place over the course of geological time - and no one disputes it because it doesn't interfere with any systems of belief.

I had to decide on animal who's evolutionary beginnings are especially interesting. So I picked birds, because as you may know, birds evolved from dinosaurs. Feathers have been described as 'highly modified scales'. So this is a kind of Trojan Horse of a concept - the evolution of the feather; a pretty controversial fact, showcased and pacified with a much more non-invasive fact.

New Art

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don't bother concealing your thievery-celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: "It's not where you take things from-it's where you take them to."”

-Jim Jarmusch

How much of invention falls under the umbrella of influence? Is there really nothing new under the sun? Should we just give up our pursuit of originality? Yes, taking responsibility for influence, legible or not, is an important bit of maturity, but I find it hard to swallow that ‘nothing is original’. Something tells me that as our ancestors before us pioneer or pillage the intellectual foreground; the same will apply to us as our descendents look back on us through history. What I mean by that is this: Art is still evolving. I don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater - It is true that we should be urged to take more responsibility for where from we draw our influence, or ‘thefts’. But Jarmusch’s argument moves into the realm of fallacy when he assumes that ‘nothing is original’. I have large reason to contend that ‘originality is non-existent.’

Dynamic plays a huge role in art. By my own definition, dynamic in the artistic sense is the overall balance between the many qualities of the whole. Without getting too heavily into semantics - if a ‘quality’ is a descriptive term that applies to the artwork – then the quality is actually a collective of units, which individually hold positions between two poles. For example, if we address the ‘lightness’ (quality – or descriptive term) we can then choose to address the bits of information that contribute to, or diminish lightness. The two polarities of that quality are ‘white’ and ‘black’, and there is a linear spectrum spanning between the two. A visual work of art exhibits many different units, which contribute to the quality of lightness. So while a section of a painting may be very black, it can be balanced out by another section that is very white. Dynamic is a complicated subject. It’s hard to explain even at the simplest qualities, like hue, value, scale etc. So when you get into something like the quality of originality, the subject becomes hyper-complex. However, originality is a quality of dynamic just like lightness. It is only that as you zoom out of your initial view of basic quality relationships, more intricate quality relationships come in to view (such as quality versus quality relationships, and so on). Understanding how these relationships work requires more and more understanding as our perspective takes into account more and more possible relationships. First, to get a better grip on units of dynamic, we might want to analyze a different kind of unit, for evidence.

Genetic reproduction has noticeable similarities to the artistic process. The pieces of dynamic qualities from which we assemble works of art are very much similar to genes. The dictionary definition for ‘gene’ is “a unit of heredity that is transferred from a parent to offspring and is held to determine some characteristic of the offspring”, but the very definition of the word ‘gene’ is disputed amongst biologists. Disputed, I think, because of the meaning the word ‘unit’. What a unit really is, is any section of the genes being addressing or observed. The units of quality work in the same subjective way. As I’ve stated early, zooming out we notice more and more relationships. From a zoomed-out enough perspective, units can rank against each other on the spectrum of originality vs. unoriginality, based on their resemblances to units within external works of art. So you can see there is a vague kind of science to art, which helps us to understand how influence causes the artist to attempt a resemblance of a unit or group of units to an external unit or group of units.

This is central to dismounting Jarmusch’s statement. Jarmusch says that ultimately every bit of art can be traced back to a parent unit. I am arguing that if we approach it scientifically, we might find that not all units have a parent. I am arguing for the acknowledgement of a phenomenon that brought us art in the first place – mutation.

In genetic reproduction there are a pair of events called mitosis and meiosis. Contrary to mitosis, which is the process where the cells undergo a single cell division, resulting in two ‘diploid’ cells, meiosis is unique in that it happens only in the production of gametes [or sex cells - male sperm or female eggs]. During meiosis the genes ‘cross over’ and combine random segments with each other, before splitting in half twice, to form four haploid cells (23 chromosomes each). Basically, this is how your parents genes combine, resulting in new combinations of chromosomes, making you a perfectly random mixture of fifty percent of the genes of both of your parents. During ‘crossing over’, the locations where they are spliced (I think – I should probably check my sources) are totally random. So although your entire being is an utterly new combination of genes derived from your parents, you are not truly ‘original’ like a work of art is original. You are simply a new assemblage of their parts (unless you have a mutant gene). What makes us seem original though, is our new assortment of phenotypic, or 'visible' traits (somaybe we are original, only on a superficial level).

Anyway, simple rules of probability state that a large genetic unit is more likely to be divided more than a small unit. So smaller units of genes have a greater tendency to survive through the generations. If you pick a certain unit of your own genes, it’s possible that you’ve picked a unit so large that it has not been inherited from just one of your immediate parents, and will not be received even by your immediate offspring. It’s also possible that you’ve picked a unit so small, it precedes you by thousands of generations, and will be passed on for thousands of generations to come. The smaller the gene, the more likely it is to survive. This is why it’s possible for you to share genes with your dog, or the plants outside your house. And on an even smaller scale, you are guaranteed to share with every organism on the planet the four letters of the genetic code that your genes are written in.

Art works with influence in the same way that genes work with reproduction. When you create art, you access your ‘genetic code’ of influence, choosing the pieces you see fit. An accessible parallel between art and genetics would between the four letters of the genetic alphabet and the music note. Music makes for great analogies because it’s the most definitive and intuitive art form. In music, there is an underlying grid (notation), which the whole of the art form is built upon. You’ll find it rare to discover anything that breaks out of the ‘notation grid’ in music.

The equivalent of the grid in music is the genetic alphabet. Genes of varying sizes are the equivalent of meters of different sizes, speeds, and lengths. A large section of genes would be proportionate to measure of music with larger, slower notation. A gene of smaller size could be represented by a measure in say, 64^th notes – everything is occurring at swifter speeds, making changes or accents more intricate and very vivid. Now the analogy becomes strained as we get down to the smallest genetic units – the genetic alphabet. The tenuous parallel for this in music would be the smallest notes perceptible to humans, which might be about 256^th notes (just a guess). The margin in the size of music notes, however, is very small compared to the margin in gene-size (again just a guess; the true parallel to the letters of genetic alphabet in music notes would maybe be 1,000,000^th notes or even less).

It doesn’t matter whether or not the artist is accessing his brain’s reserve of known compositional combinations, or if he is creating a truly original mutation, both methods are found to occur naturally in genetic reproduction. This is where we throw in the idea of genetic mutations. Mutations draw the parallel between unprecedented genetic reproduction and original artistic conception. Mutations are what I think of as pure artistic originality. Here is how mutations work; due to DNA’s imperfect method of self-replication you inevitably get instances of genetic mutation. These mutations are basically errors in replication. Most mutations are harmful to the individual who receives them. As Richard Dawkins puts it in ‘The Selfish Gene’, it’s like ‘stabbing a television set with a screwdriver; most of the time you’ll destroy it, but every once in a long time, you’ll improve it’s performance.’ Over the course of geological time, brand new, even more successful sets of genes will be produced via genetic mutation. Mutation is the most important mechanism in the process of evolution. It is the only way which species advance in efficiency. Similarly, ‘mutations’ in creativity, are one of the few ways which a species can advance it’s art.

[Many artists have invented new languages and phrases of art – and I’m sure you can think of a few on your own. I only want to mention one artist here because it’s the strongest example I can come up with. Meshuggah is a band that has sort of burned their bridge of influence behind them, and found them in a very unique place. Meshuggah was formed in the late 80’s, and in that time period, their music was largely influence by Metallica. Since, Meshuggah has really pushed the envelope of their sound, to something dramatically different than any of their influences - and instead of relying on new ways to articulate the phrases of their influences - they focus on filling a void untouched by art. Many artists have touched on this, without necessarily knowing what they were getting at. (Liam Wilson of the Dillinger Escape Plan once said, about their own writing process, that they "write in a vacuum". In the same interview, he described the band's struggle not to listen to any of their contemporaries while busy working in the studio, purposely avoiding, in particular, Converge's 'Axe to Fall'.) What this says is that influence takes you to a point where, based on your knowledge of the art form, and what has and has not been accomplished within it, you can choose to break away from influence fill a void - not just a void between two domains, but outside of the boundary of all domains. Take a few minutes to literally imagine what new art might look, sound, taste, or feel like... While many bands have adopted a similar sound to Meshuggah (A Life Once Lost, Animals As Leaders) – It’s hard to say where Meshuggah developed their heavily polyrhythmic, monophonic and detuned sound, other than through rigorous invention.]

Approaching the artistic process scientifically, we are inclined not to see originality as a possibility. Based on the fact that humans advanced intellectually, due to evolution, to a point where we became the first species with the capacity for art, philosophy, and science, and that we continue to advance further in that direction, it is unreasonable and is unsupported by evidence to assume that nothing is original. Even if the intellectual capacity of our species stood still, we could still work out ways to think of original artistic endeavors. Not to mention, the factor of our ever-evolving brains, which will continue to transform what we are artistically capable of. There are two methods of achieving originality – through diligent searching for intensely refined compositions, and through mutations within our brains that will lead to unprecedented comprehension of utterly new methods of art. This leaves us with the possibility to advance on two fronts at once – a shot at exponential artistic growth. (Saltation?)

So what is the point of all this? It’s important for all artists to consider, and hopefully understand, because accepting that ‘originality is dead’ will send us in to a downward spiral of artistic oblivion – and it’s already begun (Lady Gaga). We have to understand what it means to willingly swallow unoriginality and accept it’s flawed justification - making it slightly easier to shrug off artistic integrity. It’s an unhealthy habit, and if you understand co-evolution and co-evolutionary arms races, you’ll understand that to feed it is a dangerous game. How many years until art reaches a place untouched by human hands, and reasoned with simultaneously by the illogical and overly-logical-logic-choppers who write off the importance of quality as indefinable, and use subjectivity to worm their way out of truths nearly too complex to be defined by humans, yet too innate not to be harped-on by our subconscious? If we rest on our laurels that we’ve beaten the creative game, we allow formula to take control.