The surrealists would proudly proclaim that they painted from their unconscious. But which unconscious? The merely superficial, of admixed love and hate – or the Deep Unconscious of only Pure, Pure Love? From their egos or
Blake's Creativity comes more from his Deep Unconscious, that's why his work is more loving.
What unconscious does the artist bring into conscious expression? The superficial – with always some hate, often more than the love, or the Deep Unconscious of Pure, Pure Love? In a sense, it all depends on
To make the unconscious conscious is the role of all creativity. And the creativity is capitalized – Creativity – when it comes not from the merely superficial unconscious, but from the Deep Unconscious, the Soul.
Did the canvas like what he was doing to it? Did it smile back to him – gratefully?
I photograph a tree, a shop – whatever. And ask if it's smiling back to me. Is it saying “Thank you” – as I am?
Artists often declare that their work comes from their unconscious. That's an ego-proclamation, of which they are proud. But, unlike them, there are painters – never artists – who are led to believe that the work
The more the viewer regards the painting as being Inspired, the greater will be its Emanation.
A healer can't be an author-type, for then his primary purpose would be his self-promotion. I call him not a healer, but a dealer.
I do some drippings and flingings which vaguely – very vaguely – resemble Jackson Pollock's. One of our many differences is that I leave considerable space, whereas he fills every inch of his canvas. Too much,
