no one really appreciated anything that Vincent Van Gogh painted during his lifetime. people would even refer to his work as both morbid and grotesque and people would condemn him for using a palette of colors that are uncommon for what the norms can regard as "art." Now that he's gone, reproductions of his work can be bought for a minimum of $500 to as much as $5,000 An original Van Gogh was auctioned at Sotheby's April of last year with an estimated price ranging from $45,000 - 65,000. now HE IS AN ARTIST!!
part of being an artist is what we call "freedom of expression." how one expresses himself/herself proves that he/she is worthy of the title. well the thing is, in written forms of art called "literature", there are certain people who tend to over do it when using symbols and figures of speech that they tend to be an @ss and not care about the people who could be offended by the words that they use and the way that they put things into perspective. and recently, i just came across the worst kind of literary $hi+.
i was bothered by a bulletin board message that was posted on friendster last sunday. it was regarding someone who claims that he's my friend's ex-boyfriend and that he shot her point blank for cheating on him. he has a blog account called "confessions of a dangerous mind" and he entered a so-called "confession" last 10 march 2004 and this is what how he started his fallacious claim.
"everything was said and done. there's nothing more
to explain. it came so fast that i never saw her leaving me
at a wink of an eye. six years, it all ended in an instant.
it's all over.i dedicate these songs to my first girlfiend,
my high school sweetheart... - - - - -*..."
[*girl's name was mentioned]
two days later, he wrote a follow-up "confession" :
here's some kickass break-up songs for that freak
whom i killed last march 10, 2004.
may she rest in peace... and rest in pieces...
(with that fucking fiance...damn! i wonder if it would
be purgatory or hell) now, if that fucking fiance of my first girlfriend
would have the balls to respond to this one, he must take a eat some
words first (or soap, like john cena having paul heyman
lick,bite, and swallow those ivory bars after a
wrestling match). burn in hell, dude!
and it ended with:
--[girls complete name]--
3 january 1983-10 march 2004
PACEM IN REQUIESCAT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
there's really no point into arguing about the intents of the freak who wrote all these b*ll$hit but the thing is, a lot of people were bothered by the imagery that the author is trying to project. no one has any idea as to what wants to prove or if there even is something that he needs to prove. he may have meant all of these in a figurative way that never really got to the reader's creative perception. if this was some kind of joke, no one's really laughing about it.
in a way, i know where the writer pulled it out from. probably has to do with suppressed emotions that triggers certain visuals that would prove to be artistic if not put in a blunt way. there was a need to create fictitious characters and the lack thereof was what ruined him. now, with reactions formed and emotions flooded. there's really no way as to bring back that which has been done. retractions were demanded but there never was any for he probably claims that this is his reality.
now, he's not appreciated in his own time and i don't think he never will be and that's what turned his artistry into monstrocity...
