I got further than ever with this painting that I’ve freshly begun  six times over. None of the preparatory sketches or pre-paintings were quite right, but I went forward anyway believing I’d resolve it along the way.

There’s a point in every painting when you know you missed the mark and can decide to go forward with a variant or call it off (which can mean painting over the canvas). I’ve set this one aside not because it’s bad and or lost. It simply doesn’t tell the story.

That’s my first item.

I’ve been thinking about dual target conversations, which belong both to skillful and inept communicators. “Dual target” is where the respondent does not address the issue brought to them, but responds as if some other concern had been brought up. Two people, both in the conversation, niether focused on the same target, both speaking as if they are. Skillful when deliberate, inept all the rest of the time. In the 70’s it was a staple of situation comedies although the construct  was slightly different in that one character would be deprived of a simple fact that the other characters all believed was known to him or her. The entire plot depended on two parties operating on different facts, each assuming the other had the same information or understanding.

For reasons often known only to themselves, some use this as a technique to wrestle back control to restructure the argument and win. It’s a variant on the “what you really mean is such and such and here is where you’re wrong” counter.

The one who owns the unwinable position at the start will set aside and replace that issue subtly without stating such if the other participant can be persuaded to play along.

Energy then transfers to a manageable issue that has little to do with the original concern but seems to.

This is a mixed bag.

Manipulators employ such technique to badger and control. The caring use it to correct your thinking.

Debators use it both to strengthen their position and to diminish yours.

I find it annoying as a tool of obfuscational distraction.

In art, it is frequently the case that interpretations are offered by those with no knowledge and no clue. I’m guilty of this. As done in Mystery Theater 3000, it can be loads of fun. In fact, it can be the highlight of a tour of ghastly art where I can explain the innermost heart of an artist I don’t know and make complete sense of art that would otherwise seem a complete waste of expensive paint. Assuming expensive paint is used.

Another matter:

Whoever is in charge of the gang-up aspect of natural law is to be commended. Any single strand of cable, rope, string, cord, hair, or chain can lay devoid of human contact for long periods and still tangle. If it can’t tangle on something else, it will tangle on itself. Add other long things and all bets are off. The tangle will eventually become epic on it’s own. Natural law demands this.

At the same time, the law of droppage is aggravatingly in force. Any items which physically can fall will do so at the most inopportune moment and with the greatest fanfare.

Example: I reach for something in the pantry. A chain reaction only loosely attributable to anything I did will cause the largest container of gloppy stainable liquid  to sail to the floor and explode in a manner mimicking non illuminated fireworks. If glass, it will shatter sending schards into the farthest reaches of the room. If plastic, it will flex then deform and at the moment of greatest internal pressure (usually on impact) it will aim itself so as to hit the largest number of targets,  release the protective cap, and spray far and wide. As I marvel that this is even possible, it will lay on it’s side convulsing while the remaining contents gush out. Natural law requires any creature in the area to careen around the corner at that moment.

Anyway. I’ve got to see what I can paint. There are happier stories to tell : ) I’m writing them for the grandkidlettes.