The following concepts and thoughts are randomly presented
as "points" to be considered somewhat independently. In
their totality they are a mosaic of my philosophical perspective.
> An apropos definition of my aesthetic approach is Form Transcends
Function. This is meant to imply that though Function is the
initial consideration in creating the aesthetic solution, the
development of Form supersedes merely what is required to satisfy
that initial consideration. And because "functional" considerations
also include the psychological and emotional aspects of the project,
Form over Function, in reality, implies "Form for Form's Sake";
or in other words, for no other reason than for the sake of beauty.
I feel that Form can transcend functional
considerations. It can not only embellish function, but it can
also take flight onto its own independent, aesthetic paths. Function
might be looked at as the skeletal framework of the aesthetics,
a point of departure, and Form is then given free rein to Effloresce.
In other words, I do not feel all aesthetic aspects of the design
have to have a meaning relative to the functional aspects of the
project. Form can Break Free from Function.
I still believe the aesthetics of a particular
project should evolve from the various aspects of that project
- that the aesthetics become what they are because of the creative
response to the characteristics of that project. And I still believe
that the resulting aesthetics should have meaning relative to
the project. I think the difference I am trying to convey is that
from that "meaning", Form can further develop like a "vine gone
wild". My contention is that this transcendent Form does not need
to be justifiable relative to the function of the project.
The idea that aesthetics can transcend
functional considerations is based upon my perspective of man's
"nature". All things in the natural world are designed based on
survival needs. All plants and animals are built like they are,
not for some arbitrary design effect, but are the form and shape
and color, because that is what servers the needs of the particular
plant or animal."
Man, however, has a mind that exceeds
the capacity of that of the other creatures of the natural world.
The greater capacity of our mind has given us a more developed
consciousness and self-consciousness, and because of that, the
mental freedom to consciously "choose", or in other words, we
have what has been defined as "free-will". I feel Man's free-will
transcends the needs based nature of the natural world, even as
we remain a part of it. And as our nature thus transcends that
of the natural world, so too can our aesthetic approach.
When I started doing my pencil comps
and clay sculptures, I noticed, accepted, and developed, my proclivity
to make continual aesthetic decisions, as the design grew point
by point. That ability to freely determine growth, I equate with
free-will, and I've always felt it transcended nature's way.
Another aspect of my aesthetic approach
was the aesthetics themselves - as they evolved intuitively and
spontaneously - organically - they never just repeated what had
preceded, nor were they pre-established, like for instance, "I
think I'll sculpt a woman's torso."
This "Constantly Changing via Free-will"
is the basis of my idea that Form Can Break-free from Function
- that man's "human nature" enables him an "Unbridled Freedom
of Form Development".
The concept of free-will is the essential
aspect of the philosophy of existence that I believe in - Existentialism.
The essential elements of existentialism are that there is no
God to take care of us, that there is no such thing as fate to
guide our existence, and that nothing in life has an inherent
meaning. Presented with this concept, many people viewed it as
depressing and debilitating, and assumed it would foster a nihilistic
attitude towards life - that nothing mattered, since nothing had
meaning. But in truth, what it does do is give man the freedom
to choose. To determine for himself the meaning of things and
the actions he deems worthwhile. Thus we can choose to love or
choose to fight. We can choose to construct or choose to destroy.
We can choose to enjoy beauty or complain about the ugliness.
We are free to create an incredible life, uninhibited by outwardly
imposed limitations. From within ourselves, and thus organically,
we can each construct our life as suits us best. And we do that
by making the right choices - by taking responsibility for our
lives and what we do.
This is the ultimate use of our natural
consciousness. We transcend the strictly natural by consciously
improving and expanding our selves and our existence. No animal
can do this.
> I would like to describe, as explicitly as possible, what I
consider the Existential approach to architectural design.
The idea is that each room should be considered as a separate
entity and designed as such. The process is to "imagine being
in the room" as the only way of arriving at appropriate design
decisions. The bottom-line is that the atmosphere created is the
sole essence of an appropriate solution. This atmosphere is an
organic development of the following considerations.
- Foremost is the functional layout -
the room must facilitate the "real" way the client lives - this
is paramount. A living room design should be based on the "living
experiences" the client's life entails. What do they really do
in their living room.
- Next is the appropriate shape of the
space, and the forms that delineate that space, and the colors
and the textures and the detailing that delineate those forms.
All these should develop from the atmosphere appropriate for the
particular room for the particular client. Only by being inside
this room, in your imagination, can the Existential Environment
be designed - this is not an abstract composition, but an experienced
- Each room should be considered separately
in this manner, and what is determined appropriate for one room
need not have any bearing on the design for any other room. Each
room should be free to develop true to its function and its appropriate
- The connections, or passages between
rooms, should also be developed by imagining the experience, not
as a pretty composition seen on paper.
- The development of the entire interior
design should be an outgrowth of combining the experiencing of
all these environments.
- The exterior is experienced separately
from the interior and relates to a whole other set of elements,
such as the aesthetics of the surrounding structures and the site,
itself, and, especially, the aesthetic expression of forms, colors,
and textures appropriate for the client. It, therefore, should
be of a different set of aesthetics. With the interior spaces
are connected, the exterior could be considered an outer skin
that ties them all together.
All parts of the architectural solution
are thus given their own unique validity of expression, and combined
together, create the total design.
> The Phenomenological aspect of architecture - "It is
what is experienced". And as each of us experiences the same work
of architecture somewhat differently, depending on our personal
experiences and abilities to perceive aspects of the aesthetics,
the reality of architecture becomes, in the final account, a combination
of the object (the architecture, itself) and the beholder. This
combination becomes the "atmosphere created", which amounts to
an "effect" when experienced. Thus experienced architecture becomes
a "combination of effects experienced through time". This is the
Existential Reality of architecture. Architecture designed
as a human experience - not as a composition of abstract relationships.
> If architecture is approached as an abstract composition, then
complex aesthetic and conceptual relationships can be developed
as a part of the architectural design. I feel BG considered these
"Deep Structures" an important, if not essential, aspect of architectural
design. The use of compositional concepts were developed as a
guide to help establish these deep aesthetic, and conceptual interrelationships.
For the architect, they offer the ability to create a cosmos around
the original architectural concept.
Regardless of my point by point progression
of architectural elements, the constant urge would always be to
establish deep structures in the relationship of one element to
another. It would be my "duty", however, to ignore this urge and
concentrate on the "human orientation" of the design, instead,
especially when it ran counter to the abstract compositional aspect.
It is also thought that my approach of
a lyrical, extemporaneous aesthetic flow has the characteristics
of a "surface structure" as opposed to those of a deep structure.
But my perception is that the essential quality is each point
and its relation to the points before and after it. That "surface
flow" is what is experienced on a moment to moment basis through
time - it is the phenomenal reality - and, therefore, the "structure"
that is of a human/existential dimension.
> Unity : The issue of "Unity", however, is the very issue that
delineates why I consider my approach "Existential". Unity was
one of the outstanding, and seminal, characteristics of Wright's
organic approach, and it has always been an important aspect of
our organic philosophy. When I was designing the Amertec building,
I wanted very much for it to have that characteristic - I wanted
all aesthetic elements to be part of the whole, and the exterior
to reflect the characteristics of the interior.
At some point in time, I began to rethink
the validity of unity, per se.
- I began to think that though the bedroom
and living room, for example, might be part of the same home,
their functions and appropriate atmospheres are not the same.
- I also began to feel, in a similar vein,
that the interior served a number of aesthetic functions that
were not the same as those of the exterior.
- In addition, was the idea that each
room/space (if, you will), the interior, and the exterior, were
experienced at a separate times - a continuous present, so to
"Existential", thus, implies a separate
experiencing of each element as a unique entity, having its own
aesthetic identity and not being confined to an aesthetic unity
- the "experienced reality" of each element being the most important
determinant of the design solutions.
As a metaphor of this concept, though
it played no part in my formulation of it, is the human body,
itself. Inside are organs, each designed for its particular function
and each very different from the others. Structurally, there is
the skeleton, which is a unique entity unto itself. And as an
external element is the skin, which is also a unique aesthetic.
As I define it, the basis for "existential
design solutions" is the human experience and not abstract compositional
considerations. To create "unity", I feel one must consider the
design aesthetic, itself, as a priority. Also, I consider the
"existential growth" of the design as one of each experience considered
independently from the others and then added together (in a way,
point by point) to create the whole - rather than the whole as
the initial concern and the parts subservient.
I would add that this type of approach
to design is much easier facilitated by the use of sprayed concrete
construction than with other methods of construction. Also, that
much like the creation of biomorphic identities, it might be appropriate
for only certain types of projects, such as those with very individualized
rooms/spaces. I do not feel, however, that unity, in and of itself,
is a required characteristic of organic design.
Unity does facilitate a very beneficial
quality in that it creates a "continuity to the experienced spaces".
As the inhabitant moves from one space to another, the memory
of aesthetic similarities of one with the other enhances a comprehension
by the inhabitant of the architecture as a singular entity. I
consider this a very important feeling. I would think the type
of project might determine the approach to the design concept,
as well as design concept, itself, that is the most appropriate
for an organic solution.
Regarding "unity": As we design, we all
have a tendency to impart order and unity to our compositions.
As artists, we want to create a work of beauty, and unity has
always been considered an important aspect of a beautiful composition.
My thought is that the reality of an architectural solution sometimes
has considerations that would supersede purely compositional aesthetic
considerations. And as such, it would be appropriate to refrain
from the effort to impart unity.
But I also feel that unity and order
are not necessarily vital in the creation of beauty. As we flow
linearly (the continuous present), we should be responsive to
and enjoy change. There does not have to be a reiteration of past
The word, "Composition", itself might
be part of the problem, because it implies abstract, aesthetic
considerations that might take precedent over the existential
reality of the appropriate environment.
> "Music in the Moment", is a book which discusses the theory
of an Edmund Gurney. In the 1880's (simultaneous with Sullivan),
Gurney expressed the belief that music is enjoyed and comprehended
on a moment to moment basis only - a continuous present - as time
is of the essence in experiencing music. It also discussed the
memory and anticipatory aspects as they related to the moment
by moment experience.
Though parts of a work of architecture
do not "disappear" once experienced, it is, nonetheless, experienced
through time. The reality of the "present moment experience" can
be considered the singular reality of that architectural composition
at that particular moment.
My design approach of an area by area
development (point by point) is my theory of a Continuous Present
approach to architectural design. This design approach is similar
to my perception of the compositional technique first used by
Edgard Varese - a sound by sound development. Each of these ideas
is based on the fact that the point is completed and then the
next point is connected to it based on a beautiful and appropriate
transition - each point being a unique and self-sufficient entity.
This responds to the linear "path" of time, moment by moment -
being Always In The Present.
The composition as a whole could be nothing
more than the linkage of moment to moment sounds, which would
be similar to the day by day flow of life. I mean a linkage of
sounds based on beauty, not a pre-established structure. I like
to think of it as a walk along a path where various choices of
diverging paths can lead to evolving changes of scenery. The changes
can be exciting and keep the senses alive. We must be open to
change, and as in life and music, we might not be able to ascertain
an order to this path, but we should enjoy the beauty of the flow.
> The connotations of "room" are inadequate.
But I also feel "space" is insufficient. Space implies the volume
within the architecture and does not imply the architecture, itself,
other than its "form", which gives the space its shape. The quality
of the materials, the colors, textures, and the resulting effect,
are not implied when using the term, "space". I feel FLLW was
influenced by the Japanese (Shinto) connotation of space, which
derives from the Ise Shrine. Ise is a sacred space, but the architecture
of the Ise Shrines is nothing more than a demarcation of that
sacred space. I feel Wright's use of the term indicates how important
he felt "space" to be, but does not connote the total reality
of the architectural interior.
I believe "environment" or "atmosphere"
are more appropriate terms. Either of those two words would indicate
the totality of the living functions, aesthetics, and space, and
the resulting effect. Thus, you might have a "sleeping environment"
or an "atmosphere for entertaining" or a "dining environment",
> As organic architects, the more we understand and are sensitive
to the unique aspects of each particular project, the more our
creative expression reflects our psychological and emotional response
to what is special about that project. Being organic architects
means we love each individual project, because we cherish and
want to express what is special and unique about that project.
The more we love, the more creative our aesthetic expression.
> Associations and connotations can be both intended by the architect
as an aspect of the aesthetics and experienced by those viewing
the design. These associations and connotations facilitate an
ever increasing layering of the design's characteristics. What
they should not do is become an image that detracts from the design's
abstract aesthetic reality.
> It is my opinion that very few clients have a highly developed
individuality that might serve as a foundation for organic solutions.
Those that have, most often, do not also have an aesthetic inclination,
but more often a creative inclination in their own field. It seems
designing and building on a speculative basis, in some cases,
might actually serve the cause of creative self-expression to
a greater degree than relying on a client to define the project.
I think most often, we have asked too much from the client as
regards to creative design. I also think a home buyer, as an example,
would be more inclined to respond to what might be termed unusual,
if he could first see and experience the work of architecture.
It might also help if there were other "unusuals" in close proximity.
> I don't consider architecture an "organism", and individual
interior spaces as its "organs". I see architecture, not as a
biological relationship with nature, but in an aesthetic relationship.
It is not to become the same as nature that architecture should
aspire, but to be on an equal aesthetic plane with nature that
excites me. Forms might have naturalistic qualities for aesthetic
and functional reasons, and the totality of the design might transcend
its aesthetic parts to take on the quality of an "organic entity",
but, again, not to mimic nature.
> There are two types of freeform. One that embodies an underlying
geometric basis, and another that is totally free. It was Goff's
thought that Gaudi's work was primarily the first type. The essential
elements of the Amertec building are the first type as well, with
the geometric movement of the rebars creating the main forms and
spaces. Connecting these elements, I was able to use the second,
actual free-form type of design.
My desire was to one day design and actually
build in a completely free and intuitive manner. This approach
would first document the conceptual and aesthetic solution on
paper as the basis for the start of construction. Then on site
designing would be done on a continual basis as the structure
is built, while keeping in mind the original aesthetic premise.
I like the idea that the creative process would, in this way,
be an ongoing adventure.
> In essence, "organic" would preclude any preconceived, externally
applied design determinants. Only the natural evolution (organic
flow) from the unique aspects of the design program, itself, to
an appropriate result can be considered organic.
The essence of "organic" is the freedom
to allow the solution to evolve primarily from the unique characteristics
of the project, itself. The more unimpeded by externally applied,
pre-established restrictions, the design process is, the more
we approach the ideal of our organic philosophy.
The organic approach is also a beautiful
philosophy of human existence in relation to nature and the cosmos.
In the final analysis, however, I feel it is Love that is the
essential element that we take with us into the abyss to create
> Traditional methods of construction are in a sense, externally
applied design determinants in that they set design parameters
that limit the aesthetic possibilities. Sprayed concrete construction
on the other hand allows total freedom to design the space, form,
whatever, anyway you want - it goes wherever you want it to. I
equate this design freedom with the freedom created by the use
of electronic instruments in composing music.
> It is my thought that the evolution of organic architecture
could be architecture as a Biomorphic Entity with Amorphous
Space. This, I feel, is our "uncharted shore" -an architecture
based upon the living and emotional needs and wishes of man and
aesthetically co-joined to natural beauty of the planet upon which
Amorphous Space - free-flowing
space created by free-flowing forms.
> The combination of freeform design with naturalistic characteristics
opens a limitless panorama of architectural aesthetics. From forms
to colors to textures to finishes, all can be created in never
before seen aesthetics.
In that regard, architecture could be
aesthetically influenced by the characteristics of:
- animals, insects, and bird forms and
- plant forms
- oceanic forms, as well as those of
fish and corals.
- geology, such as rock formations, ice
flows, cave forms, and minerals.
- human aspects
> Incredible, beautiful, exciting atmospheres - that's essential
element of architectural interiors. That is the goal when designing
each room or space.
· To start with the client's freedom to
use the space as fits his wants and needs - as he sees fit - flexible
or fixed - as he desires.
· To evaluate and expand the function
so that it exceeds the basic utilitarian need and facilitates
an exciting living experience.
· To have the aesthetics evolve according
to this functional point of departure.
· And then to have the aesthetics explode
into "atmosphere", which then combines with the living experience
to create the ECSTASTENTIAL - a word inferring an architectural
environment that promotes a feeling of ecstasy in the inhabitant.
Since I consider the effect of architecture on man its essential
function, then I would think that the highest goal of our architecture
would be to create an ecstatic response in those that experience
> "Atmosphere" requires that aesthetics, per se, be transcended
to facilitate an effect or an environment. As examples, imagine:
- a space defined by undulating forms
similar to the swells of an ocean.
Imagine these painted the blue/green
iridescence of an abalone shell.
- or a space defined by the fractured
planes similar to quartz. Imagine these painted an opalescent
- or a space defined by billowy forms
similar to clouds painted variations of powder blues and light
- or a space defined by soft curves,
colors, and textures similar to the moss garden of the Sahoji
Temple in Japan.
- or a space defined by multi-colored
cubistic forms similar to a rock grotto.
Imagine those qualities, those beauties
of nature as examples of potential architectonic spaces and aesthetics.
Sunsets, cloud formations, flowing water, sea shells, etc. etc.
etc. Imagine these always as abstracted, not copied. This is what
I feel free form should facilitate in architectural design.
> Western culture has developed from an evolution of thought that
includes the application of Euclidean geometry for architectural
purposes. This has led to a geometry, and its technical uses,
being used as a crutch in architectural design - we have let the
evolution of our concepts predetermine results.
We should abandon this crutch and resolve
design decisions in a fresh manner by having a more emotionally
involved feel for the design environment. Then again, when you
have found "solutions and answers" for one, you must not let them
serve as a crutch for the next. I equate this to the Dionysian
Abyss as the primary point of departure that must be "entered"
again and again and again, as you respond anew to each problem.
> When I find certain aesthetics particularly "unpleasant", I
wonder about the inherent perception of "beautiful" by the brain
- does the brain, neurologically, find some aesthetics beautiful
and some not?
It is my thought that our neurological
responses are in good part conditioned by experience. That if
we grow-up around particular types of aesthetics, neurologically,
we grow to relate to and find those aesthetics beautiful. There
does not seem to be the perception by all brains that certain
aesthetics are inherently ugly. In the final analysis, the neurological
ability for the brain to accommodate to ever new stimuli means
one thing - the artist is free to explore and explode as he sees
fit. He's free! He can venture into the unknown unafraid of creating
> The more the aesthetics veer towards the Phantasmagoric (I love
that word, and all it connotes), the more potent the personal
imagery becomes. Restricting aesthetics to the geometric curtails
the emotional intensity of the response. I feel Gaudi's work is
the best example of the phantasmagoric.
> The reality of a fractal is a mathematical constant. The reality
of a natural phenomenon (i.e. your coffee swirls), to my comprehension,
is not. Many chaos theory scientists equate the non - Euclidean
quality of fractals with nature - they being closer to nature
than the square, circle, and cone, etc. But though they might
be closer, they are not the same. Like the mind of man, I see
natural growth freer to respond to, not only it's genetic make-up,
but to it's environmental circumstances, as well. To my way of
thinking, neither the mind nor nature has the limiting mathematical
basis that fractals do. - I cherish our ability to choose between
making a left turn or a right turn on a moment by moment basis.
When I think about my perspective of
the universe and life, I don't see them as a Scientist/Mathematician
would. Nor do I see them as a Spiritualist would. I guess it boils
down to the fact that I see them as an Artist would. I don't need
equations, nor do I need a God/spiritual essence to grasp their
reality. "All you need is LOVE".
> Each form has its own physical properties of aesthetic characteristics,
and I would think, that's all it has - just existential beauty
- with no transcendental meanings. We can then either find them
beautiful or interesting or whatever.
> "The Continuous Present" is an existential / phenomenological
approach to life. - To be alive and be aware in the moment.
> Thinking about what I consider to be the "essence" of a work
of art, has lead me to reconsider the term "work of art" and replace
it with "aesthetic object". That is because, for me, aesthetics
is the essence of, not only manmade works of art, but natural
objects, as well. And by aesthetics I mean an object's form, color,
detailing, texture, etc.
These aesthetic characteristics of an
object are its visual (phenomenological) reality. And it is this
reality of simply aesthetics that I strive to create. I want to
create an aesthetic object of beautiful forms, colors, textures,
and the interrelationship of these elements, much like that of
everything in nature, whether it be a flower, a rock, or a cloud,
For me, the value of an aesthetic object
is based entirely on how beautiful I find its visual reality,
its aesthetics, to be. Whether it's sculpted from clay or marble
or wood; whether it's small or large; whether lyrical or monumental;
none of that makes any difference to me as to its value. That
it is creative; that it is original - a personal and unique statement;
and that it creates beauty (at least for me) - that's what I deem
its ultimate value.
> Wonderment and curiosity are the two most important characteristics
of the creative persona. Truth is a variable very much dependent
on each individual, so the thoughts and ideas you evolve are as
valid as any.
> Imagination is like inspiration - a special quality of the creative
persona. And like inspiration, we should make good use of it and
enjoy it. One of the best ways to facilitate continual evolution
is to imagine the possibilities. And then with the help of a little
willpower, actualize them. Imagining the atmosphere of an architectural
interior is, to me, the means of creating that interior.
> To emulate does not imply copying. It does imply a fascination
and love with the object of emulation to the point one strives
to have his work "be like" or strive to equal that which is emulated.
The qualities of nature's aesthetics are such that I want very
much to have my work have similar characteristics. The creative
artist will always translate what he hopes to emulate into his
own aesthetic vernacular. As Wright translated his love of nature
into the geometric, I translate my love of nature into freeform.
I will always be inspired by the incredible forms, colors, textures,
and details of nature to the point that they will always be my
aesthetic point of departure.
> The straight line could be considered the essence of Western
culture. Time-wise, it's the quickest; distance-wise, it's the
shortest; effort-wise, it's the easiest; cost-wise, it's the cheapest;
goal-wise, it's the safest; construction-wise, it's the only sane
approach! Obviously, I'm nuts!
> I truly believe man's greatest asset is his potential to Improve
the world - to add beauty to the already beautiful, or to refine
that which can become that much more "perfect".
> As some will spend time and effort in Transcendental Meditation,
in essence, closing down the senses to the real world in hopes
of accessing the spiritual world, I propose a discipline of Sensual
Perception - self-consciously opening the senses, perceiving reality,
on a scheduled basis. Concentrate, really concentrate, on taste,
on smell, on feeling, on hearing, on seeing. Set-up a schedule,
as often as suits you, but on a continuing basis, when each of
these senses will be concentrated on. The important aspect of
those existential exercises of concentrating on each of the senses
is to become consciously aware of each. When you divorce each
aspect (its sound, its smell, etc.) of a phenomenon, in a sense
"abstract" its elements, then you begin to really "know" that
> My clay sculptures are examples of Melodic Flow in 3-dimensional
forms. To my way of thinking it would be wrong to add the counterpoint
whilst in the flow - it would be far better to add the counterpoint
at another time when your emotions have progressed to a different
state, when the mind would be more receptive to an alternate idea.
Perhaps you could then enter a perpendicular flow? "Perpendicular
Flow" - I love it! Get high, then shift gears, then pull an U-e
(as in U turn), then blast off in another direction - letting
your emotions drive you. Man, what fun barreling through the flow
zone at different angles!
> Just as I let form flow extemporaneously in developing my sculptures,
I should develop both a surface detailing of those forms and the
coloration of them the same way. By "surface detailing" I mean
a texture that is constantly changing and evolving, rather than
repetitive and strictly accentuating the form (as in nature).
Painting the sculpture would also involve the same "changing and
evolving" (again dissimilar to the nature of nature). Thus the
three elements of the sculpture: form, texture, and color, would
each be independent entities. The sculpture's aesthetic identity
would be the co-joined result of these entities.
> I feel the resistance to creative aesthetics is a deep-seated
aspect of human nature. I feel it is part of the innate feelings
of insecurity and a fear of the unknown, both of which equate
to a need to cling to the past and conform to the norm. I often
wonder whether these fears can be alleviated - if mankind can
develop feelings of confidence in themselves and in the future.
Man is evolving, as all things in the universe are, but whether
mankind is evolving in this positive direction is another question.
> There is the distinct possibility that man is on the brink of
a whole new "human nature" via genetic engineering. In the next
50-100 years, I think the limits we now deal with as humans will
be erased. The psychological, intellectual, and physical aspects
of being human will be substantially improved. What we are now
will be considered a primitive form of human.
Life can be good now, but we're missing-out
on life's great potential to afford real happiness, and the ability
to be lived to the fullest. Mankind will eventually create himself
so that he can create that type of existence.
Philosophical question of the day (hell,
of my life!) - Why don't good things come easy? Why must they
always require so much work, with so many obstacles in the way?
I like "easy". I think it should be the way all things are. I
don't buy that what comes easy is taken for granted and quickly
becomes boring. I say, if it's a good thing, it's fun to enjoy
it, and if you don't know and cherish a good thing when you have
it, well then, you're the fool.
If the manipulation of the Human Genome
becomes a reality, well then, it just might be that "easy" will
become the new reality of life. Then, rather than life becoming
a bore, it will become the blast it should be.
> In a way, there are three types of people:
First off, there are those who are "self-centered".
These people base their actions on greed, power, and sex. They
go about using the world to suit their self interests.
Then there are those who are "good-intentioned".
These people want to "improve" the world, to make it a better
place to live. Their actions are based on telling everyone else
what to do. They have a better way, and they want you to change.
Then there are the "question mark" people.
These guys don't know shit. But they are curious, and they are
bedazzled by the beauty of the world. They don't understand why
or how, but they know it turns them on. They love what they see
and want to somehow express that love. Then someone comes along
and asks this "know-nothing" if he (or she) can design them a
home. This know-nothing says, "I dunno, but I'll try. Since I
don't know nothing, what are your needs and wishes?" The know-
nothing, not knowing anything, then drops into an abyss. He grunts
and groans, and then he remembers all that love he felt and applies
it to the client's needs and wishes, and then out of nowhere pops
an idea and then another, and then there it is: this little flower
Let's say there is this beautiful desert.
And in this desert is this little desert flower, all by itself.
The self-centered person, being a developer, decides this wasteland
needs a road and buries the little flower. The good- intentioned
person, being in this case a talented landscape architect, views
this beautiful desert, but somehow decides that the little flower
seems out of place. So to improve the desert he takes it upon
himself to remove it.
Now for the question mark guy…He's bowled
over by the desert and the flower. Curious, he goes up to the
flower and checks it out, but not knowing whether it "belongs"
there or not or why the hell it's there in the first place, he
simply walks away the better for the experience.
The question mark guy goes out into the
"real" world and gets the shit beaten out of him. The self-centered
person steals his money, and the good-intentioned person merely
screws up his mind. It's a bloody mess. The question mark guy,
therefore, should always remember what makes "entering the ring"
and getting pummeled worth it in the first place. That is the
desire to create works of art that express the Inspiration he
gets from the beautiful forms, the beautiful sounds, and the beautiful
ideas he loves. It is also the Thrill of the Creative Moment he
has when creating. The pure ecstasy he receives from being inspired
to create and then creating makes it all worth while.
> A thought: regarding question marks, themselves: keep making
them bigger. If you get close to an answer, enlarge the question.
It's the exploration that leads to creativity. Whereas society
admires those who "know the answers and are confident in there
knowledge", creative types must stay receptive to keep growing
and allow their creativity to evolve.
> Trying to do something that is "good", usually means doing what
you are good at, which means doing something that you have already
done. To grow and do something new, you must take a chance on
what you have never done. You must jump into the unknown and work
your way to a new found thing.
> I feel the best way to deal with a humanity that is far less
than what we would hope it to be, is to take control of the only
thing we can control: ourselves and our own lives. As I see it,
we can Enjoy ourselves and our lives. We can Improve ourselves
and our lives. And we can creatively Express ourselves. That's
a whole lot to focus on. If all these fail to do the trick, you
always can do what my favorite philosophers (teenagers) suggest:
"have lots of sex".
> The Bottom-line is that man must realize that he can CREATE
reality, himself. We must stop hiding behind dogmas and stop being
afraid to take control and take responsibility. The Internal Abyss
and the External Chaos are our ticket to freedom and are not to
be feared, but embraced with confidence and strength. No More
> Loved ones help define and enhance who we are, just as our genetic
background and our culture do. For most, that is sufficient, and
they know themselves by those parameters. But to become the person
you have the potential to become, you must transcend those limitations
and begin to call the shots. Sure, a lot of reality has to do
with a natural outgrowth of circumstances. But to a great extent,
Self-Conscious Effort is the guiding force that can create the
"developed uniqueness" of each of us.
Reality should be a creative endeavor
- an effort to Structure your perceptional environment, to Actuate
the beautiful, to Facilitate quality, to Become your potential.
> I do not feel that the universe can be "harmonious" or any adjective
for that matter. It's like giving meaning to a rock. A rock can
be aesthetically beautiful, but unless you are Shinto, there's
nothing else to it. The poetic sentiment, in particular, "misplaces"
the quality of the poet's heart on an external element that in
reality does not possess that quality. Those qualities aren't
out there - they're inside us. I'm afraid we are all just going
to have to realize that it's time for us to accept the fact that
there is no metaphysical essence is out there that cares. The
creativity within us is the universe. Be someone who faces the
blank void of the universe with strength and creativity to make
of life what you can.
> As I am personally devoid of spiritual projections, I am likewise
nil when it comes to association projections, so I see the abstract
only. Even with its biomorphic aspect, which I pursue in my own
work as well, it need not be more than the abstract for me to
experience its full aesthetic power.
To experience and enjoy the phenomenological
beauty of nature - its perceivable beauty of free-flowing lines
and forms, the colors and textures, is the only reality of it
that means anything to me. And I have no interest in attaching
any romantic connotations to that beauty - just purely gorgeous
> The definition of ART is the creative self-expression of the
artist. Its validity is based strictly on its relationship to
- The "art world" of galleries, art critics,
and collectors, has nothing to do with ART - it has to do with
- There will always be new creations,
because there always be new artists with unique, individual expressions.
- ART is the beautiful entity of the
abstract relationships of space, form, color, and texture. Ideas
are an aspect of philosophy.
- ART is not philosophy. ART is not ideas.
ART is AESTHETICS.
> The artist has three realities:
Himself, when creating.
His being known of and/or remembered.
His influence on other artists.
For the artist, himself, the first is
his essential reality. The last, though predicated on the second,
is his value to his art.
> The Dionysian Aesthetic: The Greek gods, Dionysus and
Apollo have been used in the analysis of art to describe two basic
approaches to design, as well as the art object, itself. In general
terms, Dionysian has represented the aspects of emotion and intuition,
whereas Apollonian has presented the rational. In "The Birth of
Tragedy", Nietzsche describes the nature of the Dionysian aesthetic
as having a wild, untamed dangerousness about it. It is an uncivilized,
hedonistic, abandonment to the emotions and the senses. Passion
is its emotional intensity, and Ecstasy is its emotional result.
I equate the nature of my "extemporaneous,
intuitive flow", which is driven by an emotional intensity,
as the very essence of Dionysian expression. My lyrical and melodic
flow of spontaneous intuition is essentially, Dionysian, both
primal and universal!
Nietzsche's "superman" is nothing more
than the desire and ability to be unique and express that uniqueness.
The Dionysian man transcends his culture and is not limited by
> The creative act is the essence and the thrill of being an artist/architect.
I, therefore, consider the ability to sustain the creative state
the optimum experience, and with both my pencil comps and sculptures,
I am in a continual flow of creative expression - it is a moment
by moment intuitive and spontaneous aesthetic flow. Rather than
determine or decide what to do next, such as repeat an element
to create a rhythm or a texture, and then go about doing it (work),
I make each aesthetic movement flow from the previous one without
any predetermination. I am, therefore, creating all the time -
rather working to accomplish a design.
> Got a lot of chipping away at Rock, and I was beginning to wonder
where we're (me and Rock) are going with this thing, seeing how
I'm giving Rock free rein to "become" what it will - assuming
it has a will. And suddenly I realize where it's going - it's
becoming a rock wall!
So I say, "Whoa Rock, why we becoming
a rock wall?
And Rock says to me, "Cause every other
rock in this yard is part of a rock wall. So I want to be, too."
And I say, "Yeah, that's great, but, dude,
how the hell am I going to be a famous sculptor if I just do a
And Rock says, "Hey! Idiot, I'm just a
dumb rock. Figure it out for yourself!"
So, at present, I'm banging away, applying
my will to the naturally" dumb will of the Rock. Only time
will tell where we end-up. But hey, I'm enjoying my "talks" with
> Here I was creating a major work of art - I was even thinking
I was on my way to becoming another Michelangelo - when the big
dumb "softy" starts breaking-off at my stone cantilevers! Just
when I'm refining a detail, it cracks! And more than once! Hey,
if Rock ends-up more than a pile of dust, it ain't my fault if
it's not a masterpiece! Just leave it to a "natural" material
to have a nature insufficient for my sculptural genius!
> Eureka! "Boulder" (Rock's cousin) has gone from "ugh" to "flat-out
ugly"! NOW, I can leave that preconceived result I had in mind
and head-off into "WHATEVER HAPPENS"!
Hey look, it's up to whatever natural
talent I might have, as to how it turns-out. Trying to make-sure
it's good is nothing but a hindrance to creativity. The aspect
of human nature that compels one to, at last, "open unknown doors"
is at the heart of being a creative artist. Overcoming the fear
that compels us not to do so, is the first "pain" of art-birth.
Then comes the second "pain" of art-birth
- the groping around in the darkness of a new "world" of unfamiliar
aesthetics. And this abyss can be a frightening experience, as
The easiest way I know of to deal with
these pains is to approach each with love. But the ability to
open up to this type of feeling requires a positive and confident
attitude. Goff's singular effort was to help instill this positive
and confident feeling within each student.
It is because of Goff's influence that
I strive to take my architecture and sculptures to the extreme.
By extreme I mean: not to be satisfied with just creating form;
not to be satisfied with having color and texture and adding finishing
ornamentation; it is the desire to transcend the combination of
all of these elements and create an Organic Entity.
> How "good" my aesthetic statements are means little to me. Who's
the judge, anyway? Just as one person might like the beauty of
one tropical bird more than another, both are beautiful, in their
own right. They are what they are. My aesthetics come from me,
and as such, they are what they are - and that is all they need
> "Abstract". Even though all art is filtered through the artist,
it should not be termed "abstract" if it is primarily representational
or impressionistic, because the object is explicitly or implicitly
shown. Abstract leaves the object behind and becomes something
altogether unique - totally non-representational.
My latest "abstract" endeavor, affectionately
called "Board", is underway. It's interesting to watch my mind
wrestle with the indecision to either "just let it grow" versus
"man, I've got to make this sucker great and do new and exceptional
aesthetics". But alas, it's not my call - whatever will be, will
> I always get this weird feeling when I'm in "nature without
humans". It seems to be two-fold. One that nature just keeps doing
its thing, even though humans aren't around to confirm its reality.
And there's also a feeling of isolation - like being connected
to the universe, but as a solitary being. I feel man and his architecture
has always strove to counteract that feeling by maintaining human
companionship and enclosing himself from the elements.
The sad fact is that it is very hard
to be a "part of this world". There is not much out there that
is beautiful and intelligent. I can relate to so little of it
that it requires the development of a lifestyle primarily of independent
WAY OF THE WILD
By yourself, for yourself
On the outside, looking outward
Curious about the mysterious
Undefined and forever evolving
Confusion - answers unknown
If answers are known,
enlarge the question
Aware of only the moment
Connected to nature:
Howling winds at night
Beaming sun at noon
Cold water at dawn
Barren ice fields
In Wildness is the preservation of Mankind's Creative
> I consider "expressions of creativity" the most important product
of human endeavor.
> The relationship of Extemporaneous, Intuitive Flow to the Flow
Life moves in two basic ways: One is "cyclic",
created by the earth as it revolves around the sun. The other
is "linear", which is the movement of time, day by day.
The cyclic connotes the reoccurrence
of predetermined dates, such as the seasons, birthdays, Christmas,
etc. - each at various intervals. Our life can be structured by
these predetermined dates - we celebrate our birthday, Christmas,
go back to school, go to work, etc.
The linear would imply a path of ever
evolving change. Evolving change would preclude any predetermined
"points" along this path. And thus the ability to flow into the
next point, unencumbered by any predetermination, would be the
basis of this linear flow.
The idea being that as man increases
his desire to live creatively, the more he should discard the
cyclic in favor of the linear. The point could be made that the
cyclic gives a framework, an order, a foundation from which the
linear can be "launched". I would agree but add that the more
man can access his creative nature, the more apt he would be not
to rely on such a foundation. Neolithic man required that foundation
of the equinoxes, solstices, etc. - they were his "crutches",
so to speak, as they helped him structure his existence. We, however,
should be able to structure our personal flow of life so that
it may organically evolve, as we creatively live each day into
the next. This is the ideal of creatively living in the flow of
the "continuous present".
If we were to live almost entirely in
an ever-evolving linear flow, I wonder how that would effect what
is termed our "biological clock"? Does it have to have repetitive
rhythms such as sleep patterns, or can it adjust to 4 hours @
various times? Does night and day need be taken into account or
doesn't it matter that much? I would think we would have to be
responsive to our need for down time to offset the "up" time.
Eating could be determined strictly on a need to or want to basis.
Priorities would be self-established as guides, as would the weather
help determine the best options for a particular time period.
If given the ability to self-regulate
our activities, we might quite easily flow from one thing to the
next without a biological need for cyclic repetition. Cyclic rhythms
might feel more natural, because they are the way we presently
function. But they might not be all that necessary once we access
our inclination to live creatively in the continuous present.
No more habitual life, no more external
controls of our life, no more wasted life. If the desired activities
were constantly available to us, our life could be a never-ending
riot. But much would hinge on our self-discipline and self-awareness.
> Okay, enough is enough! I've about had it with all this violence
and hatred and bickering and competition! I'm fed-up with all
these social and personal problems. So here it is:
Chayo's Solution: existence whereby everyone
is happy and content.
Two changes are required: man and society.
Man by genetic manipulation, society from the evolution of man.
To begin with, physically, every person
would have to be a perfect physical specimen - attractive, healthy,
yet unique. The important aspect of this would be that everyone
would be satisfied and pleased with his appearance and not envious
of that of others. It would then be necessary that everyone be
universally, sexually desirable. Then all visual desirability
of another would lead to sex, and no one would feel slighted or
jealous. Attraction would not be frustrated. At the same time,
various bonds with someone else could be established, lasting
for as long as the relationship remained intense. After that,
each could move into a new relationship with another person. In
this way, all aspects of sexual contact would be continually possible,
from initial lust to a warm companionship. Though sex is only
one aspect of the physical abilities of man, everyone having it
with whomever they want will make for a happier race.
Mentally, each person would need to be
highly intelligent and independent, with an innate curiosity.
Each person would be able to determine for himself what choices
best suit his particular proclivities, and life would become an
enjoyable adventure filled with physical and intellectual interests
Each person would, also, have to be emotionally
and psychologically self-sufficient, yet loving and giving, thus
allowing him to bond with another, without becoming possessive.
The ego or conscious self-awareness would have to mature. No longer
would negative emotions be necessary to experience the positive
ones - no need to have sorrow, to experience joy; no need to have
sadness to know happiness; no need to have hate, to have love.
Each day would be joy, happiness, and love.
Spiritually, man would no longer need
the services of a god. He will have come to grips with the inevitability
of death. He will live, what I project will be, a 150 year life
span, at which time it will be his altruistic responsibility to
vacate the premises with a glorious party of farewell. He would
have also come to grips with his relationship to the universe.
He will understand that man is part of an occurrence unique to
Earth - Life. He will realize that it is Life, itself, that is
sacred. He will also realize that given our intellect it is mankind's
singular responsibility to make sure that life on Earth does not
go extinct. Sustaining the existence of Life is, in fact, the
meaning of man's existence. He would also realize that the personal
meaning of his existence is to live life to the fullest - to develop
and express his uniqueness and to share his love.
The result of this evolution of man would
be a society that would no longer need man to work for a living.
Everyone would be free to spend his time as he saw fit. Society
would no longer require conformity, but would thrive on the unique
expressions of each individual.
For just a moment, think of how incredible
life could be and how little of it is really and truly special
as it is lived at present. Some of life's aspects that we now
consider as particularly important are part of the problem. When
we are able to revise them, a better existence is doable. This
utopia would enable each person to live a joyous and satiating
life - a life free from envy, greed, hatred, and violence, but
full of love and happiness.
> Was in it Confucius who stated, "Mystery is all well and good,
but I'd much rather see the breast than imagine it? For it is
indeed the actual perception of form that pops your synapses!"
(I bet you never knew that the whole Playboy empire was founded
upon this simple Confucian truism?)
The reality of the bra is its ornamental
quality to the form of the breast. Herein lies yet another aesthetic
pursuit - the bra as a thing of beauty when applied over the form.
In this pursuit, the "artist" must see form and ornament as one
entity, and not be enticed by the mystery of form alone.
Which reminds me, wasn't it Buddha who
then added, "All Zen questions can best be answered by entering
a mosh-pit or dining out at a fine French restaurant". Theory
= Experience - which leads to Enlightenment, which is: "Don't
swat flies, they might be Buddha Babies".
> I seriously do not know how a caring person can deal with the
realities of urban planning. Personally, I don't think I would
have the ability to assume I have the answers for others. In a
way I equate it with being a missionary in a foreign land - I
have no right imposing my beliefs on their way of life, no matter
how much I felt I would be "helping" them.
I feel things are the way they are because
they reflect the way the people, as a body en mass, are. And in
that respect, I feel there's nothing to do but just let it evolve
as it will. America, like no other society before us, is continually
heading more and more towards what the people en mass want and
are. My thought is that each individual person has the option
of joining the mainstream flow or separating from it. I see no
value of spitting into the wind by trying to change it; or being
a candle in the wind by railing against it. Hey look, our culture
has given you the freedom to create what's good for you - what
you want for yourself. By and large, the populace doesn't want
you or need you, or for that matter, deserve you. Leave them alone
and put your creative efforts in enjoying your life. My apparent
negativity is based upon my belief that our organic approach and
unusual aesthetics are not appropriate for the people we say we
want to "educate".
Nor, for that matter, do I think "organic
order" can be applied to the reality of life. Journalists and
historians look back and pick-out aspects that they consider prominent
aspects of a certain time period and fabricate a story that has
only a superficial relationship to what really was. Life is not
an artistic composition to which the quality of order can be applied.
It is unfathomable, complex, and chaotic.
Now, anyone can decide to think there
is an order or a god underlying all this haphazard complexity,
if they want. Who knows, and if it makes it all a little easier
to take, that's fine with me. But the reality of reality is the
way it is experienced, regardless of what's unknowable. And I
say we accept the reality of this experience, and not hang our
hats on some mental make-believe.
> I know of only one law..."You don't eat, you die".
From which there is the only "principle"..."Find
a way to get food".
The answer to that principle appears to
The way (Tao) to get money appears to
The need for warmth, like sex, shelter,
and a new Porsche, is naught but a "by-law". As such, it don't
count for shit in extrapolating the true principle of existence
- which is "Give me that!"
The One Principle of Existence, "Give
me that!" facilitates the Three Great Drives - to get Power, to
get Sex, and to get Money. These are the motivating drives of
the human species classified, "Takers".
The other species are those who value
Truth, Beauty, and Love. This species is made-up of artists, poets,
philosophers, composers, and dreamers of all sorts. And because
of the "love" factor, they have the need to share what they value
most (truth, beauty, and love) and are therefore classified, "Givers".
Now, for the life of me I cannot fathom
the law that extrapolates to their disregard for the One Law,
"You don't eat, you die". I'm figuring they must have been dropped
on their heads at birth. Anyway, their great misfortune (besides
a lack of food) is that they want to give to the takers, which
is just fine and dandy with the takers. Problem is, they want
to give truth, beauty, and love. The takers, however, know that
truth won't make them powerful, beauty won't get them money, and
love won't get them laid. And so, if truth be known, the givers
are Wasting Their Friggin Time!!!
So all you noble, beautiful Givers, Wise-up!
- your efforts are being misplaced. Go create your own world and
enjoy your own life. Make it beautiful, based upon your own perception
of truth, and filled with love.
So if you make me Dictator of the World,
this is what I will do.
The takers will be housed in enormous
mega-structures. The takers don't care where or how they live,
just as long as it is better than what everyone else has - so
the big cats get a bigger cubby-hole. There will be lots of long
lines, traffic jams, and crowded places to congregate, because
they will then know they are in a "popular" place. They will be
isolated from nature, because they don't like it anyhow, and this
way they won't do it any damage. The one thing you must remember
is that the takers don't care what they have, just as long as
it is more than everyone else. In this way, the rest of the Earth's
surface will be for us to love and enjoy and garden and make beautiful.
> The ability to change is the essence of the "contemporary" ego
- an ego in tune with the flow of reality. To me "reality" should
be a creative endeavor - an effort to Structure your perceptional
environment, to Actuate the beautiful, to Facilitate quality,
to Become your potential.
As to the "reason" for architecture,
except for a very few and far between individuals, most people
are "socially oriented" and their concerns and needs are directed
towards social ends (i.e. family, friends, making a living, enjoying
their life, being respected, belonging to their group, etc.) Their
need for "higher" aesthetics is close to non-existent. I consider
this a "reality", maybe not the way it should be, but the way
it is. I would almost say that what we as architects consider
our architectural "mission" - to give people good architecture
- is a delusion and based on the fact that we, ourselves, want
Regardless of the functional basis of
architecture, I consider the architect an Artist. And as such,
his primary "need" and "value" is to create beauty - to give form
to the love he feels. This could be considered a purely "selfish"
endeavor, but not so, if one realizes that the beauty he does
create will be experienced and enjoyed and loved by those able
and interested in doing so - which are primarily other creative
artists. I feel this is a fact of life that we should face. If
we were "wanted", we would be busy at work giving the world our
idea of what they "need". They don't need it and therefore don't
have the money for it. Rather than this fact hindering our interest
in creating architecture, it should set us Free to Create Glorious
Beauty for ourselves.!
> The Meaning of Life: Since Man first faced reality, he concocted
Meanings that helped him understand and deal with it. As society
became more complex and civilizations and cities developed, more
elaborate Meanings were created to assist people function within
these social structures. Thus Meaning evolved from Shamanism to
the various religions and their dogmas. It is important to note
that the spirituality that man experienced - the mystical experience
- plus his feeling of wonder and awe towards nature and the cosmos,
were truly felt responses to his inner spiritual qualities, which
he then used to create a "god".
Part of the evolution of Man's creation
of Meaning was just recently revised to believe that "There Was
No Meaning" - that there was no inherent Meaning of reality. When
Nietzsche stated, in essence, that God was dead. He was not necessarily
referring to a spiritual being, but that religious dogma - the
meanings society was using - were no longer usable. Existentialism
as a continuation of the "belief" that there is no meaning, was
a philosophy developed dealing with no meaning.
This lead immediately to a thought by
many that no meaning meant Nihilism - nothing meant anything so
nothing mattered. No supernatural rules, therefore, reality has
no value. But neither Nietzsche nor existentialism intended nihilism
to be the course of action to be taken by Man. Nietzsche's "will
to power" and existentialism's "authenticity" are nothing more
than Man's birthright and responsibility to CREATE MEANING and
live by it. It was and is hoped that Man will have enough of a
heart to create a beautiful Meaning, a positive and loving Meaning,
a constructive and joyous Meaning, and a sharing Meaning.
This is what it's all about - to stand-up
and give Meaning and live accordingly. Thus will reality then
have a truly valid Meaning, whether we believe in a spiritual
essence transcendental to Man or not. Each of us, if we choose,
can create a truly beautiful reality for ourselves.
> Goff told me the final butt-kick of a great composition/design
is the addition of a dissonant element - that one, last, little
part of the whole that sends the thing that much further. When
you think you're done and everything's just right, think again
and throw in the "unexpected".
> The connotations of "Organic":
Organic - having the characteristics of
nature. There are basically two characteristics: the aesthetic
aspect and the growth aspect.
· The aesthetic aspect would be natural
forms, colors, and textures, etc.
· The growth aspect is that of a development
from within outward.
As organic relates to architecture, per
se, I feel it is wise to start with Louis Sullivan. The essential
aspect of his philosophy was the growth aspect, from within outward
- from the seed to the flowering of an entity - a natural evolution
of its true nature. From this growth aspect evolved the aesthetic
aspect of "form follows function". Thus the natural growth of
an entity would express its design. Sullivan stated these concepts
in, "Kindergarten Chats".
Sullivan also extended this philosophy
to include man and society, as he delineated in, "Democracy -
A Man Search".
Wright transformed this ideology into
a breath-taking array of theories and aesthetics - from the way
materials such as wood and stone are used to the evolution of
each particular design from its unique aspects and in intimate
response to the landscape upon which it sits.
Organic can also connote the use of naturalistic
aesthetics, such as freeform lines, forms, and spaces, naturalistic
colors, patterns, and textures, and an entity having a biomorphic
growth pattern. Gaudi's work is a good example of this connotation.
Goff's delineation of organic has more
to do with the artist/architect than with the art/architecture.
Though his approach to organic design growth was extremely client
specific, and thus expressive of the unique characteristics of
the client, Goff's essential concern was the organic self-expression
of the artist/architect. And thus we have his legacy - Kebyar.
> The very beauty of organic is that it "encourages" the development
of each individual from his within his own unique set of attributes,
rather than copying someone else's.
The effort made is to search within yourself
for answers, rather than pick and choose already developed answers.
We are each made-up of a unique package of genetic and environmental
determinants. They WILL facilitate a unique expression, if allowed
to develop. The very essence of Kebyar is the flowering of that
unique expression, by each individual.
> The Organic Principle is not a pyramid with the such of FLLW
and BG on top, spreading on down to the also-rans. It is, what
I would like call, a bag of marbles. Each of us "marbles" is of
equal value, doing what we can, working with what we've got. None
of us marbles has the right to be a "critic" or a "missionary"
as it concerns any other marble. To me, it's that simple. Anyone
can join the "bag", but the essence of the bag, which is "creative
self-expression", is sacrosanct.
Any of us can only do what we can do
with what we've got, and we are the sole judge of our success.
There is no architectural critic on earth or up in the heavens
that we need answer to.
> I feel "differences" is the essence of Kebyar. We should learn
from those scientists who attach their ego to a certain concept
and live and die that it is the "final" truth, when the very nature
of science is the continual evolution of man's awareness of truth.
The same evolution applies to architecture. Organic growth is
evolutionary growth, which to me means: "ever more free". I don't
think that it's necessary that we personally like everything new
and creative, but we shouldn't let ourselves become locked in
place, either. Our culture flows and evolves like no other in
history, and we should thrill to that flow and flow with it by
being creative and responding to the creativity of others. Bottom-line:
today's better than yesterday, and we can make tomorrow better
than today. This does not mean, however, that we cannot cherish
and be influenced by our "ancestors"!
> The secret is to make use of your freedom. It is also good to
remember that the limitations on your freedom actually can be
helpful in facilitating freedom, as total freedom is a tough row
to hoe. The need is know the parameters within which you must
function, and then realize all that you can do to create and then
enjoy your life within those parameters. Though some parameters
seem better than others, all come with negative aspects - so we
best be thankful for the parameters we have.
There are various aspects of personality
transformations and/or "excursions". The one I am most interested
in is the effort to "expand" what we are - to realize that we
are more than what we think we are. Not so much an alter-ego,
and not so much a little trip into other environments, but an
enlarged persona - to grow by self-design.
> It's a shame that all of what makes us unique and beautiful
, is not shared to the extent it could be. That is what "social"
should mean. It is almost a catch-22: when socialization would
be the most worthwhile, that is between persons with much to learn
from and about each other, communication is difficult. But when
those persons are of the same group and/or background, and therefore
very similar in outlook, it is usually much easier to communicate,
even though it is mostly both reconfirming the thoughts of the
other. I feel this is because, for most of society, people want
primarily "to belong". Socialization is a vehicle to substantiate
I feel when a person has developed an
independent spirit, he tends to leave the group and head-out on
his own. But this very independence creates a desire to meet other
people who have done the same. The problem being that, once on
your own, it is difficult to bridge that initial gap of an unknown
and discover another independent person. It is also the nature
of friendship that "likeness" is paramount - rather than uniqueness
and difference. So bonding with someone different than you is
a difficult task. This is unfortunate, because this is where socialization
becomes so much more stimulating and enjoyable.
What is special about Kebyar is that,
whereas in society where friendship is based on "sameness", here
it is Individual Uniqueness that is the common ground. We can
each be pursuing our own direction, but still appreciate each
other's efforts. In fact, it is that very "differentness" that
creates the bond.
> The reality of Kebyar is self-expression. The way of being the
type of person who believes that the expression of his own unique
individuality is the very meaning of his life, its most vital
aspect, requires independence. It is vital that you maintain your
self-conviction, if you want to enable your unique self-expression
to develop and flower. You must stand apart and self-sufficient.
You must venture forth into your own unknown with little in the
way secure signposts.
If you are to deal with the reality and
continue to develop your uniqueness, you cannot look to others
for reassurance. It is, of course, a given that society at large
can be counted on to do its best to actively denigrate your efforts,
as they are a personal affront to their lack of individuality.
To accomplish this independence, to pursue
your unique path, you must create for yourself the daily activities
you deem important to facilitate self-expression. And then you
must discipline yourself to pursue and develop these activities.
You must accept being lost in the abyss of creativity as the normal
state of being.
> I figure that seeing how you got way down here, through all
of that stuff of mine, you're probably asking yourself where I
got all of "it" from. Well, if you must know, I personally enjoy
a Buddha Consciousness induced from sniffing glue. So I have it
from Hisself that we are to join him in Nirvana, the Nordic Valhalla,
the Hindu unknowable universal essence, the existential abyss
of the void, in other words, the Kebyar cosmos of creative self-becoming
Man, I'm telling ya, this glue's good
Hey, Buddha, pass the glueda.