How Humble and kind Ironic
I might Fall in love, care for poetry, study politics, be polite, hear voices, talk above, not alone, cry, breakdown, fuck, hate reality, tuck paradoxes, teach, care, smile, drink, sip benzos, scream, not care, (unreadable) still, not that small
Not to think, or to thrive against a narrative flow, is ultimately the rational exercise of building coherency from a what is contextually non-sensical in a community.
Only the real negation of culture can inherit culture’s meaning.
Such negation can no longer remain cultural.
That could be therapy. It is the transparency. The honesty. Sure, we have our psychotic breaks and bask in the nerves of anxiety-led bumps, but we get up in the morning to break the norm. A significant other decomposed in triangles and other geometric shapes, colored, bright & in movemenet.
No one told me that in the real world the act of translating a context would be a lesser act of greatness than to create the context. Figured it equivalent. If visualizing is therefore inferior to the source, I suspect that visual arts are smaller than literature.
That could be dinner.
A stalker of the addicted. Keep it. A seeker for greatness through my catalystic features. Stalking in the night so that one can see through, in the morning, in the park, before work. To contextualize the design act as function driven is to instrumentalize a falacy. You are drunk To enable fuction is to allow the achievement of a goal. Goals are concept-driven. It’s a different world now.
That could be happy.
A non-article like this should pintpoint how absurd it is to exist in a relational reality. Fuck Andrew Bleauvelt Because it isn’t at all about facts. It’s about communicating through a lens. We are emulating the beliefs of tomorrow.
oh no, tomorrow. That’s the main storyteller, that is what we do. Create monuments; envision landscapes; overreact to briefs and question goals; we fucking; we fucking push it forward; we laugh; we do that and still care about that form — that seductive. We emulate the line, we formulate the question, but still, we are here building an argument.
We, the designers, carry the reliability of what is correct while preserving the integrity of the future. do you envision it? Setting it straight, we are, carrying function and equality and ubiquity, as the storefronts of rationality and belief. Isn’t it true that we emulate and react,with ubiquity, to our beliefs? is that an idea? Aren’t we the masters of what it is to be suspended? that’s Ana Hatherly Aren’t we the vehicles — not the masters of reason, but holding the reasons to try to be — that hold a human centerpoint in politics and society?
That could be something that could’ve been.
Before we thought about it, it could be. Still it can.
This has been a good conversation.
Do you want to mumble and chat?
That could be nice. Here is an e-mail address: