(Untitled)

[thisisnotsean]

5/27

Comments

[honkyplease]

First thought: the beginning of the universe disagrees with you.

Second thought: you are confusing the material with the immaterial/intellectual.

[thisisnotsean]

reply to first thought: perhaps what we believe is the beginning of the universe was a movement/manipulation of something else already existent

reply to second thought: you are correct, but perhaps the formulation of ideas comes about in a similar manner

(these are all conjectures)

[canto1138]

Oh yeah, and how do you know the universe actually began?

[thisisnotsean]

my first reply covers that: "perhaps what we believe is the beginning of the universe was a movement/manipulation of something else already existent"

[im_binky]

blah blah blah blah blah

[canto1138]

Though true in some senses; it just sounds like an excuse for completely unoriginal art to me.

[thisisnotsean]

it is not an excuse, simply a description. "original", in terms of both the physical (painting, song recording/performance, film strip, etc) and the cognitive (the idea driving the eventual physical manifestation of an art piece), seems to be used to describe things that inherently have traceable elements to previous manifestations/ideas. it is an accumulation/collage and/or manipulation/distortion of at least SOME things (physical or mental) that have already been made/expressed. (obviously this is not always entirely the case, but in general i believe it is true)