Compliance
A composite of words...
Manifesting is not the key. I’m approximately sure that “manifesting”, in-and-for all intents and purposes, is not it - or at least the correct word. “Actualizing”, for the lack of a better word, feels, right.
For the time being, the prominent teachings (in the visual creative world, at least) is to fastidiously laden art-techniques, in some precocious sense of vis-a-vis translation, with science-esque concepts about design, shape, and/or color that is de-facto of the stimulus one seemingly deems to see. A fool’s errand, really.
What is the distance one travels from mind to canvas?
Myriad this landscape, though the attributors are just as sincere, of science-esque tropes and misguided interpretations of phenomena; the rule-of-thirds, shape-language, sacred geometry…
Salient is the contention to justify art creation, let alone Art with the big “A”, to just exist. Expression. It’s really all there is - a mixed bag, but isn’t it a bit absurd to loathe and disdain what one, reflexively-ironically/ or cynically-jaded/ or what-have-you, essentially is? It’s really surface level stuff -
To boil it down, giving expression a structure is one thing, but to tabulate it by semantics-of-execution is, well… clever bullshit. “Seeing is believing” is a dogma; just like in language, images will continually shift through the filter of time. Let me pontificate this now: there is no hidden language in art - especially with the big “A”. In my corner of experiences, no amount of mental scaffolding or perceptual aerobatics can divorce a creative work from time. And just like there has to be faith when one leaps through the dark, the spectral haze that what we perceive to be real is a process. Stimuli are measured, phenomena is wabi-sabi.
In this reality of the physical, the signals that concrete are the medium in which we perceive from one to another. Do you see what I see?