I can’t move forward with the dictionary (401 project) until I solve a presentation problem with myself. The question is; Do I make my own website, or use the wiki?

To understand my question, I first must explain my piece so far. The point of this piece is to create an emphasized subjective-reality, (I’m aware of the paradox in putting subjective and reality together, it’s the point, to put emphasis on the ironic truth) it’s basically another view or an abstracted view of the world of narrative. The words are facts interpreted through subjective thoughts, arguments, and situations. The point of view is stressed through the element of colour, each colour is a single facet, it stands as a cognitive embodiment of expression. Each coloured expression reveals a perspective and a list of words. These words are put in particular lists because they share fibers that fall suite to that particular facet revealed through the mood of the colour. Now, that’s not to say that one word can only fall suit to one colour, they can be expressed through multiple colours, this is what makes up the irony, the putting together of two (or more) truths. So far, they’ve developed a surprisingly funny dialogue, I’m considering putting some of it together for a play, which would un-abstract (is there an actual term I could use here? perhaps reconstruct? but that doesn’t work as it implies that it was deconstructed, which it isn’t it was simply translated into a new identity) from the alternate view of narrative that I have created. Now this is where my question comes in, if I leave it in it’s wiki-state, it will be at it’s purest form, it will exist as cognitive exploration through software  that was made with the intention of collective understandings, and differences in mind. The concept of wiki software is like the bottom layer or skeleton of the concept. However if I make my own website, it will follow the specific narrated design plan needed to convey a more horizontal hierarchy, which would relay the point most effectively. This is important because, I guess it would reveal my own opinion as the artist, it would make the entire thing have a signiture moral or viewpoint. My own reasons for creating this piece is based on my feelings, that there is no value in being ignorant. The egocentric or ethnocentric mentality, will only be lost and celebrated among those of your colour, and will only represent a theory of the truth, therefore the more worldly your view is, the more applicable it is to reign truth.

So do I create a narrative? or do I set the stage? Which brings me to this, is it possible to simply just set the stage? I guess it depends on what my narrative is. I’ve been stumped on this for weeks.
…I’m not sure if any of that makes sense.

anyways, here it is if you want to look


some words intregue me more then others.  one thing that the dictionary reveals is the complexities, richness, and issues that concern certain words and terms.  how do i define a word that holds the meaning of so many different applications. such a word has just come up to me, the word is “jerk”.  the idea of a jerk has become a common problem in many of my favorite ideals. my definition thus far is; one who undermines and counteracts often recklessly the goals of an ethos.

now this can be applied in both uses of the word jerk, a name to call someone, and a sharp movement. both have the ability to alter the original course of movement, sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a negative way.

there are problems with this word and the definition that  i have given. in that jerks are sort of essential, in many ways they provoke questions contradictions within the established order.  in other ways a jerk is the one who uses trust and openness within an ethos as a catalyst for digression.  the authority loves jerks, jerks give power to the authority to take control away from humanity as a whole. whats troubling to me about hating jerks is that, they are proven to be a part of the voice of humanity.  dealing with jerks is a slippery slope, because the perspective of who is a jerk is completely subjective. it asks the question who is calling who a jerk?

a jerk i guess is something we may not like, sometimes we may hate them, but it’s something we have to live with.

the dictionary

I’m starting to question this whole dictionary idea having started school, mainly because I’m having too difficult of a time finding anyone who has done anything similar.  Am I looking in the wrong places? I don’t know, I’m hoping that I’ll find a whole community of strange neurotic linguists and English scholars with major OCD so I can bring them my version of “the dictionary” for them to all have a chuckle at. What I’m attempting to do is to take an artistic and process driven approach to  lexicography. ( I just learned this term.  the definition of this is; the writing, editing, or compiling of dictionaries.2. the principles and procedures involved in writing, editing, or compiling dictionaries.) So according to my previous entry in which I present my “formula” for the question; what is art? man’s interpretation x X = art. I am breaking down the first part of the equation “man’s interpretation”, as I am the artist I will analyze and classify my own interpretation and understanding, the most obvious way to go about this in my eyes to do this is to write a dictionary of my own words and thier meanings according to me from my own perspective.  I would imagine that it would be read as an index to my thought process.  Who knows, maybe I’ll come up with something mildly original.

dictionary of a madman.

schizophrenia has played a bit of a theme in my writing over the summer.  perhaps its my own way of understanding my own way of understanding, but yesterday morning my friend/collaborator were having another crazy conversation about who knows what, when suddenly it hit me.  writing my own dictionary that has a subtle narrative to it but basically a dictionary from my own perspective and interpretation.  crazy, yes… stupid, no. after four years at ACAD if asked what is art? my answer would be “man’s interpretation of something.” it is an equation, the final piece would be the value of X. I have also learned that almost anything in this world can be argued proven or disproven, truth, history and facts are often if not always subjective. man has created classifications to try to interpret and understand themselves, this has been achieved in language, law, and mathematics. there is a curve that has developed in mankind’s classification systems that has the “grey area” expanding, as time goes on issues become more complex and debatable the idea and interpretation of the universe continues to become more adaptable, history is actually historiography and is more  a narrative and interpretation then fact, how can it be fact when it exists only from memory and narrations made from perspective. language and meaning evolves and expands. this peice will probably be very useless to anyone else but the artist, however once retrospect I know it will be essential to my work. this same friend also introduced me to Antoine Marie Joseph Artaud that afternoon, and I have to ask, why do all my literary heros get stabbed in the back by a pimp for no apparent reason?