digital garden

This is what i think i will discuss tomorrow.

Experiential/expressive communication – “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”. The idea that, with transience inevitable and fluid interaction with the mutative fluctuations of reality desirable (with all fluctuations having an equal and opposite reaction), the body acts as a nexus between inverse realities. Inevitably, all information is distorted upon contact with the intermediate, indeed distorted by contact. Symbiotic relationship between realities, which emphasises the intimacy of polarities. The idea that creative resolution is possible if one is able to let go of the information and allow it to pass fluidly, and kitsch is a symptom of stunted informative transferral (either through opposition to distortion or a lack of contact with the nexus)

Like dance – rhythmic and opposition is inevitably created without training.

I desire to, ultimately, pinpoint the lack of dignity in the consumption of design, and find ways to communicate aesthetically and through function whilst avoiding the void of the consumptive mentality.

So, if consumption is to be defined as: the desire to subordinate an object that conceals the deeper desire to be subordinated by the object (with both invoking little creative effort on the part of any player)

Or is defined as: the human desire for stillness and clarity for and with minimal effort, manifested as the sterilisation of the possessor by the possession (whilst the possession is subordinated)

Or defined as: inverse catharsis
(.. is the cathartic response more instinctual? easier? Than experiential/expressive methods of information transferral
Consumption/catharsis as false resolution)

How is this translated to long-term garment interaction?
Can the garment continually be consumed?
Or once it is consumed, the sterility leeched and the garment fertilised, is the "dead thing" worn as a trophy? Conquered, draped across the flesh in some effortless attempt to have the world recognise that the worn is now an extension of the wearer? However, rather than that the wearer has somehow infused a part of themselves into the garment, as they desire to believe, it is the consumed garment that has been digested, absorbed and indeed adulterated the existence of the wearer. And with most garments being kitsch, this is indeed a flattening of the subject.