Thesis Hypothesis

In the beginning, I had just an inkling of spectacle and detail, but it progressed into something much more rounded and complete. I give the word detail the meaning of an exquisite, quietly existing moment, that you have to be very aware to catch and appreciate, but it is often without word or thought. You may not recognize it when you see it, but that sense is always there, you just have to tap into it. I find this is easily accomplished my looking at the ground outside as close as you can. It's force, energy, drive, an absurd confidence that keeps everything in motion and striving to spite inertia. Spectacle is a parody of this force, and in an attempt to emulate this awesome phenomenon, spectacle became a product, like a performance; and in recreation it became an illusion. I would like to assign hierarchy to these ideas, even in my language I renounce the latter. However, in art as a means of conveyance tainted by the act of one over another as candidate for subscription is a falsehood I find far more terrible than act.

In this transmutation detail is bound to get swept up by glamor, to be more attractive in order to be perceived. This is my dilemma in creating objects How do I wrap up the essence I have identified without unraveling the whole thing backwards by process?

Nostalgia and grandeur are important in spectacle, and detail requires awareness and subtlety. ( and an even keener viewer to understand and identify it.