Image is reception, not presentation.

This thought is at the forefront of my examination table. No matter how many ways we present ourself, no matter how much makeup we wear or which size cock ring we place in our crotch, image is defined by those who receive them and not by de facto presentation of the image itself. Mass marketing advertisements are either exciting or repulsive to viewers; the image is static, the receiver dynamic.

It is a terrible endeavor to become an artist. The metamorphosis is arduous. It is hard, it is not necessarily a dramatic outcry (although, it is simple in the midst of it to change it to such.) One must open up their thoughts and eyes simultaneously. Even if what one seeks to create is based in logic and analytics, emotion is not disconnected from these parts of the mind, and to excite the left is to excite the right.

An artist must learn, like phonics, through sequential failures and incessant repetition, how to receive and hear the images of living. What we seek to do is to present these images and ideas in such a manner that their reception possesses fidelity. There is no clear-cut answer, aside from blatant artistic equations, to convey. The distillation and reconstitution occurs discretely during production, but simultaneously while viewing. It is this chemistry of sight and feeling that is the tricky part. The instructions have never been transcribed because they are realized and not definable.