Anxiety - Comments

I read my comment not knowing it was my comment but I still think the same thing only a little different. I don't think this is art, although it's artful, but I don't know that Van Gogh is art really. I don't know why it matters, it really doesn't, it's so confusing. I hope you write to figure yourself out a little and I hope by writing you actually do figure yourself out a little. I hope that is the purpose of this.

I agree with the comment above - I am not going to write much about this because it isn't something I would take the liberty to comment on - it's not art in that it serves a purpose, I just realised that sounded rude because you are not inside my head but what I mean is that if it was purely fictional it would be art but it isn't because it serves a purpose... have you ever read the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray? It's one of my favourite things ever written - the whole book is but the preface in particular - and I agree with its definition of "all art" being "quite useless". Jonathan Safran Foer has a similar definition in Everything Is Illuminated but I can't find the quote, argh. AH, found it.

ART.
Art is that thing having to do only with itself - the product of a successful attempt to make a work of art. Unfortunately, there are no examples of art, nor good reasons to think that it will ever exist. (Everything that has been made has been made with a purpose, everything with an end that exists outside that thing, i.e., ‘I want to sell this’, or ‘I want this to make me famous and loved’, or ‘I want this to make me whole’, or worse, ‘I want this to make others whole’.) And yet we continue to write, paint, sculpt, and compose. Is this foolish of us?

I don't really think the point I was trying to make was made but I think my point, summed up and not really what I was trying to say, is that I cannot comment on this in any emotional or technical depth because to rip it apart would be to rip apart something that is truly not mine, that is so close to you that I cannot see a detachment (although you possibly do not feel particularly close to it?) and therefore feel guilty for even having read it, so instead made a comment on what defines art because I agree that art in a pure form cannot serve any benefit for its creator, must be made simply because, but art in a more realistic form must serve some purpose to they who create it but it must be more subtle and more disguised than this is. I am not making any sense! But you're too close to this story Vonn, it's too true to be art.

Having said that, it was very good and you have incredible control over words.
I am sorry for this confusing comment but after the order and rigidity of your piece I think the contrast is nice.

No one can ever say you aren't an amazing writer.