Passivity vs. activeness in consciousness is the distinction I was making.
I understand the connections well enough and I could make them on my own if I saw a purpose to it, such as narrative storytelling or choosing them as representative props. Someone seeing a banal object, devoid of story and history and just merely existing, and then succumbing to emotions over loose connections to human characteristics is what I don’t relate to. A cigar without narrative purpose is just a cigar. I can see others have totems and fetishes (in the sociological sense) of their own but the extent to which I deal with these is recognizing the message when they are used or abused.
Its sort of sounding like somebody got irritated with your creative process when you were a kid, and now you’re trying to reconcile that with other people being allowed to emote and create “for no reason”.
??? That is wildly off the mark. I’m a full on supporter of intrinsic motivation to create. I’ve defended art for the sake of expression repeatedly on this account, and I abhor when people play to the gallery. My confusion is with passive conviction of anthropomorphism rather than anthropomorphism arising only out of driven intent.
Someone seeing a banal object, devoid of story and history and just merely existing, and then succumbing to emotions over loose connections to human characteristics is what I don’t relate to.
Seeing creativity as “succumbing to emotions” sounds like you think its a bad thing that your parents told you not to do.
Passivity vs. activeness in consciousness is the distinction I was making.
I understand the connections well enough and I could make them on my own if I saw a purpose to it, such as narrative storytelling or choosing them as representative props. Someone seeing a banal object, devoid of story and history and just merely existing, and then succumbing to emotions over loose connections to human characteristics is what I don’t relate to. A cigar without narrative purpose is just a cigar. I can see others have totems and fetishes (in the sociological sense) of their own but the extent to which I deal with these is recognizing the message when they are used or abused.
Its sort of sounding like somebody got irritated with your creative process when you were a kid, and now you’re trying to reconcile that with other people being allowed to emote and create “for no reason”.
??? That is wildly off the mark. I’m a full on supporter of intrinsic motivation to create. I’ve defended art for the sake of expression repeatedly on this account, and I abhor when people play to the gallery. My confusion is with passive conviction of anthropomorphism rather than anthropomorphism arising only out of driven intent.
It was this:
Seeing creativity as “succumbing to emotions” sounds like you think its a bad thing that your parents told you not to do.