One of the most epiphanic line of "Elizabeth of Nazareth" is concerned with the relation with Perception and Experience in the unstable contemporariness: "even I don't know which is true, but one of them must be the truth". The way you question the intimate consequences of constructed and imposed realities as has reminded me of Thomas Demand's works: while conceiving Art could be considered a purely abstract activity, there is always a way of giving it a permanence that goes beyond the intrinsic ephemeral nature of the concepts you capture. So I would take this occasion to ask you if in your opinion personal experience is an absolutely indespensable part of a creative process... Do you think that a creative process could be disconnected from direct experience?
Apart from Thomas Demand, we also have Thomas the Apostle who doubted the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth because he had not witnessed it. Seeing is believing, and we are diseased with an enthusiasm to experience. However, it is not a must to experience something directly to genuinely create, but direct experience is full emersion without selectiveness. You are not to choose what you want to hear or see or taste or touch or smell when you are directly experiencing. All your senses for things desirable or imposed is there for you to intake as an artist. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the most inspiring things come mystically and unexpectedly from unknown places. A whistle or a signal, street sign or a rambling of a street philosopher can open unexpected doors for a greater creative process. An artist must be adventurous in their search. Essentially the creative process is an abstract cerebral or emotional activity in its conception as an idea or feeling. But in order to be called 'art' it must be produced or detail from myFunerals, Performance
shared, otherwise it remains an idea or a feeling. When produced, its perception starts a similar activity in another. So it is an abstract