my mind has come full circle in an attempt to think of a title so i must leave you with this, a lame excuse for a joke.

what am i supposed to do? you know, most people who look at things like this are either just lying when they say that they like it, or they're comparing it to hundreds of other things they've seen and therefore not really looking at the thing itself. art has to be accessible in *some* way. most would sneer at that statement, and my response to that sneer is, if it is not accessible, what am i supposed to do? you can have as much intent and emotion as you want when you're *making* something, but if you don't communicate to me what it is that you're feeling or saying, then you haven't really made art, you've made tissues. if you look at a used tissue, you can't tell what it is that the person was feeling when they cried into it. its just refuse. and you can make up perhaps what they were trying to say, but you could just as easily do that with any object in the universe. i guess that's not true. i guess the difference is that you know that the creator was trying to say something, as opposed to what the creator of say, a stop sign was trying to say. i think that's the reason that nature is, and always will be, more impressive to me than art. art is the spillover of someone's mind, or better yet, the mind itself. nature is not. nature does not seek to express a single thought or even a group of thoughts. it does not have a purpose. it was an accident. i guess that's the point of some kinds of art--to try to make something that didn't come out of your brain but that just happened. however, most art is just trying to express what it is that is going on in the artist's mind. and i don't think i'm interested in that unless it is expressed to me in a way that changes my point of view.