Tautology is A=>A. If it’s the color violet, it’s violet. 

If it’s a violet flower, it is the color violet. A=>B.

If it's not the color violet, it’s not a violet flower. That’s modus tollens. 

If it is a violet flower, then it is that color. That’s modus ponen. 

Violet is violet. Tautology. A=>A

Violet flowers are violet. A=>B

It'd also be equivocation to state the Color is the Flower.

Not all violets are violet; or some violets are blue, makes the statement categorical.

Therefore, "Violets are violet" becomes an inductive argument, because it's based on the probability of a violet being violet.

"Violets aren't blue," and abductive argument would hypothesize said speaker probably never has seen a blue violet, or lives in a continent outside of the United States, or outside of the Eastern part of it, or doesn't know such a flower exists.

The poet, though, relates violet as being blue, like the poet relates a rainbow as being purple, either through etymological or lyrical depth: the poem originates in England, so the word is being used in a poetic shade of meaning, and not related to the Blue Violet found in the Eastern United States. And this is how creative writing works.

The forms of intelligence, goes:


Reactive: It reacts to things, based on sensory input.



Associative: It recognizes other organisms, and can socialize with them.



Supra-Association: It not only recognizes other organisms, but can communicate with them in albeit primitive ways.



Personal: It recognizes itself as a personal entity.



Existential: It recognizes its own mortality.



Humor: It can have a sense of humor.



It possesses Cathexis: It has creative capacity.



Reason: Only men have this, but it can do complex things like algebra, or read and write.



Communal: It recognizes the needs of others above itself, and it can understand the otherness of a community, and has sacrificial ability to serve others before its own need.



Logocentric: It can properly identify the reality and substance of nature, and rather than be a product of will, it can understand a thing as it actually is, or even as it ought, as opposed to merely willing it to be. As most people understand the world as they will it, not as it actually is.



Prophetic: The ability to reconcile events, and predict future outcomes by assessing their natures in reality, and then forming correct conclusions based on such.



Above that you’re dealing with Angels and Demons and supernatural creatures. But, that’s the form of animal and human intelligence, as a scale.



IQ doesn’t fit on that scale, as someone with a low IQ could possess higher forms of intelligence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDu2rUoT2NM

Zelinka, Peter. Mysterious Pictographs of the Southwest. YouTube.com, 2021. Web.

The Human Imagination is priceless. It has great potentials for creativity. And even at this early stage in history, it could get very surreal. How ever much this is true, there's still common archetypes in these cave drawings. Giants. Bug creatures. Pinocchios---just humans with elongated noses. The murals were made around 1300AD, from what I understand. Which, at that time, the religions of the Americas had a lot of strange looking figures in it. You can see the Aztec gods and goddesses are very strange. These are no different. However, they might mean something different, which I'll get into.

Very interesting stuff. Human imaginations at work...

So, draw from the imagery common themes in human imagination. The sideways mouth of the giant  3:56  is something I myself have imagined. It's just something that turns up independently in my daily musings. I don't know why. But, there's also a common mythology of a World Tree in both Mayan and Norse cultures, which could have no contact with each other whatsoever. Why do they both have a world tree? I don't know. But, I think certain patterns of subconscious bring those ideas out, because only so much is possible for us to imagine. As great as this is, there's certain limitations on what we can draw, or represent with images.

My favorite image is the negative space where there's a woman 6:04 underneath the armpit of the owl creature. She even gets formed into a body. This is some Grade A art. Definitely among the best I've seen, even for today's standards.

Some other universal images are the Broad Shoulders of the Chiefs. 8:30. When we think of authority, we think of broad shoulders. You have to understand, also, that some of these images utilize negative space to complete the images. I'm looking at one right now, where I can see it's a man and woman, just by the negative space and what's not there. I can see the hair of the woman becoming more defined in the negative space of the image. I can even see faces cleft out of the rock, defined by some of the lines of the paintings (whether by natural erosion, or intentional, I don't know).

Very beautiful. A testament to the human Imagination, and the Logos at work. It's just the possibilities. As much as is here, I don't really see anything new. You know what I mean? There's just a lot of common archetype and symbology and even though some of it is disturbing---the Shadow in all of us is disturbing---what is depicted here is a battle between the light and the dark. Twisted and enigmatic figures are overcome by nature. I think that's the meaning of this, too. It's a fight between subconscious fears and the peace and harmony of the natural and real world. In all estimations, it's a lot like my mythology of Fairyland. A battle between subconscious demons in all their grossness, (Judge not lest you be judged; and remove the log in your own eye before you see to remove the mote from another) and the real, natural and beautiful world.

It seems like "Kitsch" is applied to all the good art. Anything that truly related to a mass audience, anything that clearly established its message, anything that was formed from tradition and craft.

I'd say Michelangelo's David is Kitsch, and every piece of art right up to, and about, the time of the Industrial Revolution.

While Shit is inevitably a part of this world, no one wants to step in it. Nor, does anyone want to smell like it. No one wants to be it. And I think art that intentionally makes Shit its subject matter, that's what it essentially is.

Therefore, I offer a better definition for Kitsch. Kitsch is that which overly emphasizes the banal qualities of life. I see it in everything, from the nihilistic and pluralistic worldview being created, and pressed onto the world. A Golden Toilet Seat, that defames and mocks all the hard work Artists have done and achieved throughout the world, that is not kitsch? But, an idealized form of beauty, or an emphasis on what's good, that is kitsch?

The fact remains, what is called "Kitsch" like Kincaid's work, is good art. It emphasizes the better qualities of human beings, and not the shit. It does get to a point, where authors write so much pessimistic and banal worlds, all of them coalescing around fruitless romances, unhealthy relationships, abuse, narcissism, murder, theft, war... It seems to exclude the very thing Art is... which is beautiful.

Excrement is not kitsch, but a healthy attachment is. 

What is art, if not for the enjoyment and edification of mankind? What is poetry, if there is no poetic justice? As one commentator put it, "Art won't put the thumb  on the scale of justice." Then why even write it? What is art, if Syrinx is raped by Pan, and she doesn't turn into a knoll? What is art, if Hans Christian Andersen's Shadow is not a menace? What is a love story, where the couple dislikes each other? Why praise divorce over marriage? Why praise suffering over pleasure? Why praise self over companionship? Why spoil the joy?

That is what art is, and remains, is the contrast of our worst with our best. It is the mortal combat between the two. The mortal combat between good and evil. The mortal combat between Shadow and Light. And if the light does not prevail? What then? Is it art! No, that is kitsch. If there is an ideal, and that ideal is true... there are those who attain it, and why shouldn't we? There are insufferable pedants who wish every good thing to be reduced to suffering. For, they are Buddhist, and not Christian. The Buddhist revels in the darkness, and blindly strives for his way, while the Christian conquers the dark, and raises to eternal glory.

Art, though, is meant to cause suffering in our modern world. That is what people enjoy. They enjoy Hell, for it interests them more than Heaven. Give them a beautiful seascape, or a peaceful image, or a colorful cottage by the river, and they'll want a Hell, a barren desert, a guttural battle, a burning effigy.

Is this to say that our better instincts never prevail? No... most sensible people do not like this, which comes full circle that the masses are enlightened. For, like Jesus said of the Pharisees being blind, had they been blind, they could see. It is obvious to those not indoctrinated in art, what is truly beautiful. What is truly grotesque. Those unindoctrinated know the difference between good and evil, beauty and ugliness (even that word is ugly and unpoetic), they know what is right.

At the end of the day, the good guy does sometimes lose, but in his loss we draw sympathy to the hero. We do not revel in his misfortune. We do not callously walk the path of the villain, and do what he does. We are not the doorkeeper of the Law, but rather sympathize with the man who sits on the stool. And though our world is very bizarre, and though some of the worst things imaginable happen in this world, our optimism ought to outshine our pessimism. The virtue of beauty, is a virtue that creates.

But, alas, that is the whole of it.  We have Malthusians as elites, who wish to bestow upon the world suffering, so they can enjoy life, and remain unbothered. They wish to bestow upon the lower classes no moral values, no aesthetic truths, nothing good. For if they do so, they gain the world, and the rest of us are just sitting by the wayside, waiting for our turn to die. As, they wish to create no hope, for if there is hope, they cannot eat happily knowing the lessers among them have it.

And that is why Kitsch needs redefined.

Kitsch is not the reworking of older molds, to produce new artforms. Kitsch is not the framing of things in mastery. For, if it is, then no one can truly live off of there art. There is no quality. There is no purity. There is no honor, beauty or truth. For the patron of the arts, arts should be accessible to all. It should be written, and now surpassed. Art should be accessed by a Clerk and Common as well as a Baron or King. It should be for all, for all people's enjoyment. It should not encapsulate human suffering, but rather human triumph.

Michelangelo cast moulds of ancient Greek Busts. He practiced his chisel on those moulds. Some might call that plagiarism. I do not. I call it mastering, so one can then reach beyond. Some might call that Kitsch, to work in Romantic or Neoclassical moulds. It matters because the moulds are there, and haven't been used for many years. They are dusty, but strike the same beautiful press now, that they did back then. Only now, we can sculpt David and Pieta and Moses, having those moulds to work with. We can reach beyond our predecessors and move to something new. Something wholly uncharted, and divine.

Should man reach for the mastery? Ought man reach for the heavens? Like a tower of Babel? Well, art no more is a tower of Babel than a trowel a musical instrument. Some backward, and folksy man might make a Trowel into some noise played in folk art---but then we transcend it, and do what is effectively art. So long as the trowel makes good music.

For, art can be a Tower of Babel, reaching into untapped realms, to bring forth humanity's worst, and then it says, "Look! Look upon the mess, and revel in it! I am covered in fleshy filth, and I do not wish to wash! I smoke my pipe of manure, I go unbathed for my entire life, I eat durian fruit and the neighboring town can smell me from miles away! And I am celebrated, famous, and even the poet knows me!" I do... and I know bathing was your ruin... but let not the rest of us become so filthy.

I came into this, with the lowest expectations. I thought I was going to get a cheesy Hollywood film, with BLM activism, Antifa, LGBT. I did see a historically accurate Eunuch. Which, was a very clever use of a transgender person, which, you can't argue with because it's part of a lot of ancient cultures.

Overall, all the characters were very well developed. The story had a very strong plot, and it was well developed. Which is rare for Hollywood these days, to actually put together a coherent script that doesn't suck.

The historical accuracy was off the charts, however. I read a lot of reviews of this, that nitpicked, but it really focused on all aspects of the Slave Trade. It had a general truth about it, and some people say it didn't focus enough on the how the Dahomeys enslaved Africans, but I found that to be the entire plot point of the movie, was how Africans enslaved Africans. I found no politics, but rather hard facts.

There's a lot of unfair reviews of this movie. But, it's a lot like Spartacus, and if this didn't win an academy award, it should have for best picture, and best set. It reminds me of old Hollywood, and the golden age of film. Just the way it's so immersive, and you really get the sense of home when at Dahomey. Like, I liked the African dance. They were beautiful martial artists, but also great dance choreography---the two often go hand in hand.

It's a hidden gem, and don't let your conservative or woke friends betray you. It's a movie beyond politics, and really sticks to basic principles of story. And its historical accuracy was off the charts, even in some strange ways that I hadn't expected.

Rejected from IMDb