There seems to be a "taking of sides" occurring in our minds, shifting "conveniently" from one side 
to the other whenever the "logic" that is so one sided no longer can "make sense" of our situation.

We can "defend" our view(s) in the name of "I know what I like" and just as quickly and conveniently 
shift to the "that is what everybody knows to be true" angle.

It is very hard to remain connected to the contradiction these (or any) two poles generate.

Am I the source of it all (therefore "in control" yet isolated/alienated) or am I an insignificant speck of dust on this planet,
itself an insignificant ball of dust in this vast universe? 

"Is meaning found, or is it created?"

Maurice Merleau-Ponty would say that "we derive meaning from our experience while projecting meaning into it!"

In terms of visual arts, this constant pull from one extreme to the other can be seen in the shift of modes of attention 
we all go through during the work process. 

We may start from the centre towards the periphery of the piece, then suddenly (and often "unconsciously") shift to 
a "periphery towards the centre" mode/approach.

The "naïve" (as in "natural" -- "un-reflected upon") procedure here is to take for granted that the "center" I start from 
is "the same" as the one I aim to reach! Or that the "periphery" I go towards is "the same" as the one I start from!

(And yet, "known centre means unknown periphery" and "known periphery/field, means unknown/absent centre!")

This naïve attitude enables us to work (seemingly) untroubled, in a world/whole made of parts that seem to fit (more or less) 
together and seldom makes us question the validity of our "world view." (Hence the "thinness" of most current "art.")

When this "world view" is sufficiently threatened so that we can no longer "patch it up" with the usual "taken for
granted" routine, we may indulge in all kinds of "distractions" (sex, booze, money, power, or even suicide) or we can lucidly
investigate this "crack" in our make up and make it the focus/locus of our work.

Giacometti  is a giant in this type of adventure. His works are the "leftovers" of the lucid struggle between the two poles 
mentioned above and almost never does he compromise that struggle for the sake of a "finished product!"

The "quality and flavour" of the creative experience supersedes the usual craving for a "work of art."

My opinion is that since his death (1966) and the "end" of the New York School of Painting (De Kooning, Pollock, Guston, 
Rothko, Kline, and others) there has been very little done to deepen and further this kind of vital work.

Could it be that, as a culture, we cannot summon the kind of courage required to enter deeply into the fabric of our existence?

We seem to suffer from a (mild) need to know, hampered by a lack of willingness to pay the price of discovery.

More and more "stuff" is now thrown at us emphasizing the "need" (almost a requirement) to "have fun," bringing back to
mind the famous French expressions: "après moi, les mouches" or "après moi, le déluge!" (After me, the flies/the flood!)


How relevant still are these famous lines: "an unexamined life is not a life worth living!"