Of course by drawing I am the cause of that specific interaction, but you provide the effect, and is the effect not more valid ? ( You burn wood for heat and light ) I don't control how you see, what you see, what you decide to look at. Maybe the question should be why does the viewer ascribe more recognitional import to, say, this sketch...
...than your front door key, or that blessed Mongoose. George said I 'provide the stimulus, regardless of our response'. REGARDLESS. Not so sure about that. Do you give the same heed to the person who sliced the tomato in your supermarket sandwich ? Which, on a basic level, is far more important to you. And Steve said I make you see the face I want you to see. But why do I want you to see a face ? And why do you want to see it as well ?
Not sure what I am rooting around for, but I think Timbo has it. ( And forgive the grandiose Tom Cruise / Renee Zellwegery of this ) You make me. Without you I am - in this context - nothing.
What I mean is I can only make what I make, but you have the choice to look at anything you want. There is nothing stopping you from going off and looking at the Mongoose instead.
I HATE that Mongoose now.
Which makes you more important. Or is this all about potential ? Is it this potential that we create between us that's the most important thing ? Are there three people in this marriage ? You, me and potential.
Please keep up your side and leave more thoughts. Enjoying this rummaging.
Co-incidentaly, Magpie's nest posted a piece about art being an exchange of energy.
5 hours ago