A Short Examination of the Purpose of Art

When I think why I feel compelled to create something expressive and original, I am left entirely without an answer that fully satisfies me. I have the definite urge to communicate an emotional message, but emotions are themselves lacking in definition or any observable status. It is probable that the ambiguity that surrounds emotional expression perhaps initializes the desire in us to map and take command of the unknown. To be the intrepid voyager to bring the indecipherable concepts of feeling to a place where others can directly understand the emotion you want them to. That you can portray a visceral concept using a method that allows the communication and eventual transfer of a usually personal and lonely experience.

Feeling is not normally a social event. Societally, we actively attempt to silence the unintentional expression of emotions. Without the consent of the listener, we rightfully feel that we would be infringing upon their privacy. Each member of a social structure typically exists in a limbo between their expressed feelings and the ones which they hold to themselves. Both because they don't want others to know, or they are unable to explain precisely what and why an emotional object actually is. The ability to translate the incommunicable seems, alluring to say the least.


Food for thought, my friends.

 ~V 1.0~

Civil Liberties

Today I have a provoking qustion: Do people really deserve their rights? Keeping in mind people like Terry Jones from Gainesville, FL (the one who burned a mildly popular Islamic religious text) who caused people to lose their lives due to their ridiculous protest, do all people deserve their rights to free speech? Albeit, in this case, he did do more than talking, but lets include this under the umbrella of rights known as Civil Liberties. Are there ever situations when free speech should be limited? Take Schenck v. United States, where limitation of citizens right to free speech was upheld during wartime, when it posed "a clear and present danger" to the nation. Is this something that as a nation founded upon the ideals of freedom to all people, should continue to allow?

What is freedom? Is it something that is just "the ability to do as one pleases" or is it "the ability to do as one pleases*" [*-As long as these freedoms do not restrict the freedoms of others]? I think our definition of freedom may be contributing to the misconception that freedom is infinite. Which it can never be. There is a limited form of freedom which is present, or at least was present in America, but nothing that can be described as "true or total freedom". It must be limited so that all may have any freedom at all.

Food for thought, my friends.

~version 1.0~