Imagery in Itself

   Images are evocative, yes, but they are evocative of nothing but themselves, and evocative of nothing but evocation itself. Meaning, uh, it's not the image itself that's evocative. The image is just an image, and it evokes nothing but itself. The evocation itself of evocation itself allows us to be put in the mood for evocation, and that in itself is the evocative part.

   And there's no way of disproving that, because there's no way of understanding the meaning of what the heck I just said. (Outside of itself, I mean. (Ha ha. circular logic, just kidding.)) What I mean was, there's no way to prove me wrong because that point wasn't very well stated so it's impossible to know what my point even was. Just, uh, go look at something that's evocative of something. You'll see what I mean then. Such illustrations of illustrations can only be illustrated using illustrations. It establishes a mood, and that mood is the thing that is itself evocative.

   I suppose it is possible of putting these images into words, but, like I said, the words can only evoke the original image. Kind of a creepy Plato thing going on there. Mood is intangible, I guess. That's the problem-- well, not the problem, that's the very essence of it. It is what it is itself, and that's the only way of describing that, which is also a perfect illustration of my point. It is itself itself itself.

   I know what you're saying. "But Eric," you're saying, "You just proved yourself wrong by proving yourself right by using something of an intangible nature to saying that its very intangibility is the perfect illustration of how it's impossible to illustrate anything with things of an intangible nature." And now you're taking a deep breath, because that was quite a mouthful there. Good job on both being able to figure that out and also to say that.

   Uh, yeah, shoot. That's a good point. The entire thing is intuitionist; it can be proven through a long series of small logical steps, but we grasp it intuitively, like ethics or mathematics. I guess what I mean in all this is, art for art's sake. That's it. Art for art's sake. If you look back over it, you'll see that's what almost every sentence has been saying: Images are evocative of nothing but themselves, and evocative of nothing but evocation itself. Art for art's sake. It's not the image itself that's evocative. Art for art's sake. The image is just an image, and it evokes nothing but itself. Art for art's sake. The evocation itself of evocation itself allows us to be put in the mood for evocation, and that in itself is the evocative part. Art for art's sake. And so on.

   I hope you don't think that was pretentious in any way. All that deep thinking or whatever. Really, I was just treating it as kind of a lark. Shoot, wait, no. I mean, I worked very hard on that, and you'd better be impressed by it!