A Barbarous Intensity
Sentimentality can be described as a type of acute receptivity toward self-implication within the world, which, at the cost of understanding, opens onto an infinite field of delusional potential. As a result, potentiality is then thematized endlessly since it is always and only encountered as it is - potential and not actual. In other words, the preference is always to remain in the potential of the experience rather than the actuality. The sentimental approach to being is often reactionary and sparked by an instance of a breached proximity. However, the subject is hardly ever lost within the instant but, instead, finds absorption in its malleable non-presence (afterimage). Such is the strange reflex to meet intimacy with distance out of a true desire to continue the intimate moment.
Sentimentality can then be articulated as an incongruence encountered when personal illumination is enchained with its potential to move beyond itself, in attempts to be relatable and expanded (turned into a object of knowledge). It is precisely at this point where the sentimental breaks away from the self-revelatory and attempts to share itself with the world. Fixating on the appearance of “appearances” is where sentimentality can take hold and develop with both criticality and susceptibility - a simultaneous state of being wholly absorbed and utterly disengaged with an object of speculation/adoration.
In short, here is a methodology finding its rooting in a conscious disregard for the primacy of sharedness, and, rather, favoring a more generative and self-serving intensity. In keeping with the fringe practice of “Neo-Polytheistic Reconstructionism”, the impetus of collecting and admiring the historical past only goes as far as satisfying very temporary and singular purposes. The potential of such connotative interaction, is that it is a method of interaction consisting of a series of judgments that it rarely reports back onto itself. Poet Rainer Maria Rilke touched upon this non-reflexive action when he wrote “So you began that unprecedented act of violence in your work, which, more and more impatiently, desperately, sought equivalents in the visible world for what you had seen inside.”
Sentimentality can then be articulated as an incongruence encountered when personal illumination is enchained with its potential to move beyond itself, in attempts to be relatable and expanded (turned into a object of knowledge). It is precisely at this point where the sentimental breaks away from the self-revelatory and attempts to share itself with the world. Fixating on the appearance of “appearances” is where sentimentality can take hold and develop with both criticality and susceptibility - a simultaneous state of being wholly absorbed and utterly disengaged with an object of speculation/adoration.
In short, here is a methodology finding its rooting in a conscious disregard for the primacy of sharedness, and, rather, favoring a more generative and self-serving intensity. In keeping with the fringe practice of “Neo-Polytheistic Reconstructionism”, the impetus of collecting and admiring the historical past only goes as far as satisfying very temporary and singular purposes. The potential of such connotative interaction, is that it is a method of interaction consisting of a series of judgments that it rarely reports back onto itself. Poet Rainer Maria Rilke touched upon this non-reflexive action when he wrote “So you began that unprecedented act of violence in your work, which, more and more impatiently, desperately, sought equivalents in the visible world for what you had seen inside.”
