RE: Painting with words - A reflection about the art of freewriting
analisys
This is the first thing that jumped at me:
Nor 'analysis' nor the opposite but a slightly queer variation of it.
This is my own approach: association instead of imagination, free flowing without reaching the originally intended end or conclusion. More discovering than explanation or description.
paint what I see, hear and feel in a coherent way
In a contingent way, for me. Coherence seems to be a corset or railing since it is a pre-occupation of the mind, a thing of conceptual premises. Coherence is nice but not real.
Therefore I like digression and diversion as these can be useful in revealing unseen images, unthought theses, unscented flavours.
On the other hand - you are very right not to overwhelm your readers. Therefore the consideration could be: whose are they for whom I intend to write? This means not to have a concrete image of the readers but a feeling of the audience. And the wish to write something you would like to read yourself.
For my own part I like to be pushed to 'new' ways of looking at the world.
Regarding words inspired by images (photos, paintings, collages) I am someone who steps into such an image and carry back what I experienced (or what came from the dark depth of the subconscious to the surface and humble light of my consciousness), be it fictitious, surreal or mere fantasy.
One rule:
Try to not repeat the earlier used routes.
Nevertheless I like your way.
;-)
I like your way, and have experienced with it before, especially in creating poetry. I do have a limit though: I need to keep my thoughts coherent and there is a door into the deepest recesses of my darkest self that I will not pass, and believe me; I can get pretty gory even before I get there. (As you have been so kind as to give me an extended explanation of your method, I will make an exception and tell you why, and you will excuse me for not being too concrete about this). I have been to places and seen things that most men would take a lifetime to forget, and I managed, In some way to compartmentalize that part of my memory, the feelings that it evoques and the things I did and know I am able to do again if ever required. To not break through that door, I must keep my thoughts inside the box of coherence, so, if I do start writing something that borders the chaos of letting myself drop into that bottomless pit, I retract from it, reorganize it and start the search for meaning and coherence, so I can keep living within myself.
It is not you who is wrong. It is I, who am limited.
Thanks for your thoughts.
:)
Ich stelle mir vor: Es kommt nicht an auf die "objektive" Belastung, sondern auf die Relation der Belastung zur subjektiven Belastbarkeit.
Es ist möglich, dass jemand traumatisiert ist durch etwas, das dir kaum geschadet hätte, und es ist möglich, dass andere Menschen Dinge von sich abspalten und die Erinnerung an diese Dinge vermeiden müssen, obwohl sie auf deiner Skala nicht "schlimm" gewesen wären.
Die subjektive Erfahrung und daher die Schreckensbilder aus dem Unterbewussten gleichen einander dennoch.
I imagine: It is not the "objective" stress that matters, but the relation of the stress to the subjective resilience.
It is possible for someone to be traumatised by something that would hardly have harmed you, and it is possible for other people to split things off from themselves and have to avoid remembering these things, even though they would not have been "bad" on your scale.
The subjective experience and therefore the horror images from the subconscious are nevertheless similar.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Yes, man is the maker of his own terrors. Fear lives in the mind, not in the outside world. I agree with you.