Posted by: Xhyra Graf | 5 May 2007

Foci is a nonsense word

“As you focus your vision widens.” Have you ever noticed that? Probably not, I’m just weird.  So, I figured out that is the problem.  My focus is really one thing [subjective experience-specifically within creative practice], but the aspects of this spill over into everything from Philosophy of Mind, Consciousness Studies, Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, Religious Experience, Creativity Research to Quantum Theory for crying out loud.  Ugh.  Anyway, it’s good to identify the point of reference that can then be used to filter for everything else; from the extreme-got nothing to do with what I’m interested in, so ignore to the general-kind of relates and how does it affect everything else.

Catch me if you can…

Let’s go back to the idea of the creative process as reverse engineering of the phenomenon of an anomaly. Let’s start there… with the Asimov quote, yada yada yada…not eureka, but that’s funny.  There we, artists, for the most part. Ugh!  OK, here we have to specify that we are talking about my synthesized model of artists because guerilla girls, environmental artists, conceptual artists, whatever are going to say…no, no, that’s not what my art is about. So then it is also needed to specify that it is not what the art is about that is the focus, but what the artist does.

So…the SEER model of creative practice.

We are in the middle of something, more than likely the creative act itself and… something is noticed or experienced.  [e.g. hmmm… that was a strange feeling, what was it-how do I express it? Or pretty flower, must paint it. Or it can simply be the challenge of capturing the essence of a person in a portrait.]  The presumption is that the SEER is trying to capture, in whatever medium he/she uses, the experience of a noticed phenomenon of personal interest.  The assumption is that one must take a self-referential stance in the approach to expression. “How do I express what I see/think this strange feeling was or what is pretty about this flower or what would capture the essence of this person?”  To take any other approach not only doesn’t make sense but removes the ‘personal nature’ requirement of the model.  Does that make it a circular reference – the model requires work of a personal nature and it is necessary to self-reference.  No,  I think it just clarifies the focus for philosophy minded people.  Everyone else might say, “Duh! you’re being redundant.” 

Hear me out…and welcome to my hell.

To be cont’d


%d bloggers like this: