Love, that eternal mystery, and shouldn’t it always be that way?
For me that is a rhetorical question, because I know the answer, and in many ways. Does that make me an expert in love? Of course not, what a horrible claim that would be . . . in a way dishonorable to the divine and the sublime.
Perhaps it is what some may call a hobby, but for me it is more like a way of life . . . the search for it (love) in most of what I see . . . and I’ve seen so much of it in so many ways. Some that know me (or think they do) would scoff at every word I’m writing here, but I can’t control that, have no need to, and simply dismiss the scoffing as irrelevant. That doesn’t make me arrogant, but more like frustrated. There’s so much I’ve come to know, but it seems the price of this knowledge is an almost solitary confinement in the knowing.
Perhaps the painting and the writing are an escape from this solitude? It sometimes feels that way. More than that though, there is this smoldering desire, “true art is characterized by an irresistible urge in the creative artist,” as Einstein put it.
Many readers may find these words vaguely written, and that’s understandable. What I’m reblogging here might also be construed as vague, and yet there is so much beauty in the mystery of it all. I neither condone nor dismiss any of its content, but somehow I do find it easy to understand, as it is ultimately one more way to search and find love, and oddly enough, it seems to describe a creative process.
Here it is, a most intriguing post: The nature of domination.
lawrence grodecki 
Thanks for the reblog :). This piece seems to be doing the rounds at the moment, although it’s an old piece (older than the post, in fact, for which it underwent something of a hasty re-wrtie and foreshortening to fit the environment to which it now relates!).
I’m not sure what you mean about the environment, but in terms of the age of it, for me it touches on much that is timeless.
Thanks again…you write well, and that’s this week’s understatement.
I should have been clearer; the article was re-written to be pertinent to the virtual world of Second Life – not that it doesn’t have applicability elsewhere, just that that was the focus at the time.
Thank you for the feedback on the writing; it’s appreciated :).
That makes it all the more appropriate. You probably aren’t aware of much of my writing, blogs or elsewhere, but the truth is that the imaginary universe is the most real, and perhaps that’s why your words ring of a certain truth? Now why am I thinking that I should brush up on my Poe? 🙂
This post resonates beyond words.
. . . 🙂
Lovely post Lawrence. I especially like your ‘vague’ take on it and the way your merged these ideas with you, the creator, the persona, the writer; the artist.
Thank you Jackie. Isn’t funny how it works sometimes? By that I mean that I really had no intent of posting anything today. Yet I thought I should, as it’s been awhile, and 30 minutes later, voila. I don’t mean to be vague or evasive, but most definitely some things are undefinable, and often as not, the creative process and its result are diminished by pushing too hard. I do feel strongly that there are some mysteries that don’t want to be fully understood. Is it possible to go too far, like violating a friend’s trust? I do think so, and perhaps in that way art is safer?
Now please get back to work and get some para out . . . you’re allowed to skip the normal, if for no other reason than to dodge the cliches! 🙂