s n a p p e r h e a d: Re-fractured and Vibrant Echoes

          In one of Driz's (now defunct) posts at ex movere, he included his interpretation of the quote: The disappointed man speaks: ‘I listened for an echo and I heard only praise.’ After exchanging comment volleys, I couldn't leave the thought alone. I started picking at it and decided to expand-expound.

          What did this Nietzsche quote mean?

          My thoughts: when one spends a quantifiable amount of anything (hours, brain-cells, words, brushstrokes, it-matters-not-what) on creating something, I think the results are the echo Nietzsche was listening for. My drive to create has resulted in more than a few select two-dimensional echoes, or reflections of my inner self, which I proudly hang on my—and other people's—walls.

          Along this vein, I think Davecat's blog title: Shouting to hear the echoes captures this action-idea in its barest simplicity. And my vague memory of Davecat's (years ago) statement that a web log containing decades of essays is a portrait of a persons life, an accomplishment, a digital distillation or reflection of a person's gestalt ... or something like that, I don't recall his exact words and now that I think about it, I may be attributing words to Davecat that he never typed. But, anyway.

          A created object is a reflection of the author-creator-artists imagination. Although the intent of the creator was, initially, primarily and ultimately, to see what his brain could create—to translate something from his imagination to reality—once it was created, and (as Ditz has correctly pointed out) the creator has made the decision that it is finished, it immediately becomes subject to criticism. This includes self-criticism.

          I think that praise is what Nietzsche was disappointed to receive; because praise is (almost always) synonymous with apathy.

          To me, every "I like it" feels like a white-lie or an act of guest-book-signing.

          Want to see what I mean by this? Go to any blog which averages more than 25 comments per post. About 90% of those comments are pap—each saying less than nothing; muttering their praises because if they don’t...I guess, nobody will know they were there, right? (If ANYONE knows of a blog where this is not true, where the majority of the more than two-dozen plus comments are viable, helpful, insightful and interesting, please point me there!) In a deeper ring of hell than that which broils sycophantic blog comment-ers are: micro-blog Twitter-ers and their constant desire to amass followers who will read their rarely thoughtful, mostly vacuous, and wholly innocuous tweets (and the reply-comments they spawn).

          An artist receives praise with a skeptical smile, but welcomes derision, comparative-criticism, and advice (no matter how unhelpful) with a warm embrace. In my case, viewers who tell me what they see in my digital renderings are great, because my creations are nurtured by pareidolia and are mostly-worthless to those who are unable (or unwilling) to be afflicted by the phenomenon.