metamethodicality (on method) (part one)

It has to be methodical too. so far, It (this partially-in-formation, always-in-formulation, fulfilled writing capacity) has been riding a spontaneous wave while slowly becoming more methodical, more consistent. but it's time that a more rigid framework come into play within which the in-the-moment, anti-artifice can still exist. i guess the methodical here is modifying the spontaneity, really, i don't think i have thought about this in ages. great to come back to it. being methodical, disciplined is

so, this is just a way of calling myself out "publicly", but really only to myself as i do not believe there are any people who think to themselves "hmm, i wonder what's goin on at methodical spontaneity...i'm gonna type it into my web address whiteness and see what steve's written." and this isnt bitterness over lack of readership. i don't think that the people who know about it read on their own, and of course i can't know about the people who i dont know, whether they know about it, via the deep dark recesses of my facebook profile. but this is assuming quite a bit and, importantly, ignoring the effects of the confessionalism of my writing which would serve as a possible deterrent against people reaching out and commenting on it. this "commenting on it" is the only real way i would know if anyone reads this on their own, without a link sent by me. having said this, a clarification is probably necessary due to the glaring fact that the tone and words chosen indicate a perceived audience. and there most definitely is, but only by virtue of the nature of this blogging medium.

the blog gave me the ability to have a concrete place where i could save, work on drafts while in progress, and then put them out into some different, more official or...final place, when the piece has reached a level of self-satisfaction that i deem it fit to be seen by another. i don't think this social relationship is problematic, diluting my efforts. i almost never keep something as a draft if i am happy with it, meaning...nothing is too personal. if ive written about a feeling, a dream, a fear, a person, and i think it is quality, something im proud of, then it gets published. occasionally, ill get nervous about a particular piece, but in the end i usually prevail, the piece gets republished.

so, i'm going to write at least one publishable piece a day, one creation, riff, whatever, that i value and define as 'done' (a dynamic, and not necessarily stereotypical definition, to be sure; ) - and this does not count.

(after writing this, it seems necessary to at some soon, future time write down the philosophy of art represented in my poetic style and subjects. ill say this: i like to think i am following in the spirit of henry miller and his subjective embrace with perhaps a dash or three more fictionalizations, like, combining two, true but distinct events because they complement each other and do not contradict. also, my style is way more abstract. anyways, another time.)

(another interesting question for another time: how necessary is this perceived audience? could i write merely for myself? can i even come close to knowing if and how this perceived audience is a cause and not a more inane than meaningful environmental accompaniment? is it still fun to think on? yes.)