Saturday, December 30, 2006

Just over nothing exists something

Warning: following is the most abstract, vague, non-committed post I have ever written. Do not expect to understand. Do not expect anything to mean what it looks like it means. If you can decipher any of it, congratulations—you know me better than I thought you did. If you do not understand it, don’t feel bad. After all, everyone must have their secrets.

Colors, sometimes bright and intense, sometimes fading into a state of near non-existence spread across the canvas of time, adding pigment to mere thought. When the brush first made a mark, it struck perplexingly. The artist should have known, should have had some concept of the finished painting, should never have made such a wayward stroke. But it seemed the brush had moved of its own accord, irresponsibly marring the image. The first mark was careless, but easily remedied, easily painted over.

The artist painted twice, three times, a forth. Each time on the same canvas. Each layer of paint concealing the previous. And when he was finished, discovered to his alarm that the painting he had hidden was more beautiful than the one that remained uncovered. The painting is framed now, hanging inconspicuously out of the way. To those that find it through effort or by mistake, it is as it appears, simple, a child’s effort made valuable only by the cost of the frame. To the artist, it is a secret, concealed for all eternity. He cares nothing for the visible product, despises it in fact. But he sees the truth. For behind the clear sky lie vibrant colors of abstract design. Between the hills now covered with trees, is a daring image he never intended for human eyes. In the depths of a still lake is the remnant of that first brush stroke. And in every other crevice are the pictures that never left the artist’s thoughts. He sees them. They are as real in his mind’s eye as if they had actually met the canvas. But alas the artist’s skill prevented them their moment.

If only. If only the artist had not doubted his work. If only he had not cared what others thought. If only the others knew what to look for. If only…but the if onlys are endless. So, as the boundaries of reality and fantasy meet and overlap, the only thought that remains is: if only the artist now had the heart to destroy the painting. And the title of the painting is as unrevealing as the painting itself: June uncovering secrets through invisible noticing.

12 comments:

jaron said...

Don't defend the post. if its incomprehensible who cares. (in reference to your first paragraph)

kathryn said...

intriguing

kathryn said...

in writing this, did you choose your words for their meaning or their effect? for example, is it significant to my understanding that the brush struck perplexingly or is it just a bit of impressionistic fuzz? or is the impressionistic fuzz intrinsic to the meaning of the post? or am i overanalyzing because I'm not ready to admit that I don't have a clue what you're getting at? although that wouldn't be true quite--it does get at something that has substance though i'm not sure i can articulate what yet

kathryn said...

but i might have to ask you about this one. there seem to be inconsistencies in it. i'm not sure if they're there on purpose or not. this is a good way to bug an analytical. i'm leaving now.

kathryn said...

ok no i'm not gone yet.
1. the surface level makes somewhat reasonable sense
2. is there an actual painting?
3. i do not know what you are talking about

bye :)

Crazzie Me said...

It's almost like scrapbooking- how one can add something and make it look this way but to move it that way will make it look like that.. But how wonderful it is to see how one can add something to it or take something away and make it perfect for the beholder of the eye.

Even though one may look at this one way- someone else will look at it at another way. You make it seem like your life is hard- but it isn't harder than what you make it sound like- For a painter- one cannot be a pro at it just by doing it one time or just to look at something and think you can get it with one or two tries- it takes time. That is how it is to know people.. it takes time. I, or anyone else, can not know you just by talking to you a few times. Only Christ knows you more than you know yourself. You are right about everyone must having their secret- and i know you are laughing at those who are trying too hard-like Kathryn- {which i am not- because i don't need to try, you are you and noone can be you than you are of you. Also because i am not your best friend- it's true!- if i was then i would know this riddle you speak of in a heartbeat.}

But what a great God we have- One who was there in the beginning and is in the end and is forever and ever.

Anyways, Happy New Years! What a great Year this will be- New mistakes, new pranks, new trouble, new trails, new blessings, new friends,new fun, new tears, new laughters, new relationships and new ways to think of new!! Enjoy this 2007- for there won't be another one like this one {until 12007- if it goes that high}

Heather said...

Josh-Concerning the first paragraph--honestly it drives me nuts when other people preface everything with a disclaimer, but unfortunately I tend to do the same. So, I'll take your words to heart without promising to change.

Kate-you make me laugh! No it's not a literal painting. Yes, it contains inconsistencies. And no, I don't promise to explain it to you. Figure it out yourself. :-)

Dayna-This wasn't intended to be a negative post, but you did correctly identify it as a riddle.

weedeater said...

...aaaaannd....welcome to the Twilight Zone...:)

Heather said...

Twilight zone? Is that what this is? I thought it was just plain pathetic!

gbfluteman said...

To quote Veggietales... "Fascinating!"

Kate, I laugh at you. Sadly, as we're both analyticals, the thought process was very similar, without the "I'm leaving, but I'm not" part. LOL I enjoy riddles. Though, I may never indeed know the true answer, as I am unable to know the true purpose of the riddle (you see, there is this thing that has to be known before a riddle can be figured out, like CONTEXT, for example, the answer to the riddle "It's black, white, and 64 squared/2 pieces" is a chess board, as it has 64 squares and 32 pieces, with 2 playing sides, which are also black and white. Until you can think of the context of the riddles answer, however, it is forever outside of your grasp (thank you, "Batman: The Animated Series" for that example of a riddle).

However, one possible legitimate thought: could this not be how many Christians wrongly think of their own lives? They look at the choices they have made, and though they know that God could've "had something better" if they had made correct choices, or different choices at the least, they fail to see God's Sovereign control in bringing to the place where they are currently at IN SPITE of their wrong or different choices. If God is indeed Sovereign (which I believe Him to be), where I am at now is precisely where I would be, regardless of the decisions I have made. I would simply be here for different reasons, perhaps working on different areas instead of what I'm currently working on, but here just the same. Would I be more spiritually mature than I currently am? Doubtful at best, as, like I said, I'm here regardless of what choices I have made as it was in God's Sovereign Will for me to be here. So, though perhaps we, as the "Artists" of our life choices, may think that the picture would look better if we had kept going down the path we had first painted on our lives, I have to wonder, given God's Hand in things, if the picture would look exactly the same, only I would've "painted" it differently.

gbfluteman said...

By painting it differently, I mean the same way we would say that you came to the same conclusion, only by a different means of logical progression. So, different choices would still bring you to exactly the same place with the same picture. You just did the paint strokes in a different order is all.

gbfluteman said...

Sorry for the run on sentence in my first post. It's missing a parenthesis to finish the side thought about context (so it should've appeared as "...CONTEXT)"