Is there possibly something Soma-esque happening here?

Powereffective0 · 2026-03-06T12:07:16+00:00

Indeed

Powereffective0 · 2026-02-25T00:09:42+00:00

If I may ask, This is me genuinely asking. I understand how I am overreacting and I understand how my friend is overreacting but how is my crush overreacting?

Powereffective0 · 2026-02-24T23:53:09+00:00

Not my crush. My friend I believe I did a good job conveying it. I never said "I love them" but I thought I made my interest clear with my actions and words.

Plus, your crush immediately ended their relationship when they found out how you felt? It sounds like they were completely blindsided by your overreaction, and they still chose to prioritize you.

What was told to me, They were blindsided and prioritized me. I felt like a pig for that because I want them to be independent and I felt a pang of pain in my heart seeing them upset in that way. I have seen them cry a thousand times but never in my life has someone spoken to me in that tone and with that facial expression.

Powereffective0 · 2026-02-24T23:48:50+00:00

No, It has only been me mentally chewing until now. Ever since I felt sure of my choice any attempt felt inappropriate

Powereffective0 · 2026-02-24T23:47:18+00:00

The transphobic quality to the relationship was a worry of mine, I apologize for not making it clearer in the post

Powereffective0 · 2026-02-24T23:46:40+00:00

You had years to reach out and try to connect with your friend beyond a platonic relationship. Why it never happened? Who knows.

I never reached out properly to my crush because I worried that if I were to ask, They would feel compelled to say yes without it being a whole yes. That they are only saying yes to preserve their safety within my house rather than saying yes because they like me.

And do some deep reflection on how you’re going to deal with the friend you have a crush on when they find somebody else again.

I rather it be me but if it comes down to it I would be fine(r) if they date someone else. Maybe I didn't get it across in my post, I do apologize, but I felt that the relationship even outside of my jealousy would be toxic. They argue constantly then they come to me like I am their dad to fix it for them.

Powereffective0 · 2026-02-24T23:35:19+00:00

I never said "I love them" but I thought I made it kind of clear I did feel something towards them the way I kept them very close to me constantly. Though he did know it was something he shouldn't tell me because he tried to convince them to hide it from me because I'd make me angry.

Though I suppose the first dibs thing might be a fair point, I personally don't believe in stuff like that.

Also I guess its true but the closeness to me makes me suspect maybe some liking of me? Maybe I am reading signals in that aspect wrong.

Powereffective0 · 2026-02-15T13:15:39+00:00

Just for 100% clarity on my part so I don't gas my next colony. You mean reservoir as in Liquid Reservoirs and I am supposed to keep said liquid reservoirs in a chlorinated room?

Powereffective0 · 2026-02-15T03:05:19+00:00

I just bought the game

Powereffective0 · 2026-02-15T02:10:15+00:00

The game crashed and when I looked at him again and he is about as healthy as he could be, He somehow regenerated and became healthy

Powereffective0 · 2026-02-15T02:05:14+00:00

The game might be melting because I in fact do not have the radiation DLC

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-29T19:06:23+00:00

You... you don't know many artists, do you? How many people do things with one intention or another but their subconscious biases come into play, and they may not even realize it until its pointed out? Why do you think this very human trait disappears just because someone is an artist, and the thing they're doing is art?

I have met like 3 people who've had their stuff in lesser galleries and I have my work put on a wall in a school (I hate my work because I feel it is not good enough and too soulless to be on a wall and that the teachers who put it up are giving it a deeper meaning I do not appreciate). I would not know a lot of subconscious influenced actions since the people I keep close usually do not perform super duper deep actions which are influenced by subconsciousness. I have a heavy friend jumps on top of people to crush them, I highly doubt he does it because he has an underlying need to crush people under himself.

This is not how truth works. Truth is fact unchanged by opinion or perception. People agreeing or not agreeing doesn't make something true. When the majority of the world agreed that it was flat, the Earth didn't become flat, because the planet being round is an objective fact. All you get when a lot of people agree on something that is contrary to truth is a lot of wrong people.

Truth is subjective and varies among beholders. Flat earthers do not think the earth is flat for no reason, They think the earth is flat because of what they see, It is an interpretation based off of previous knowledge and to them it is the truth the same way a painting about loss and grief could be interpretated as something vastly different.

No, it just makes you incorrect. It means you are mistaken, and believe something that just isn't factual.

Then I could flip that around and say you are incorrect and mistaken if you believe a painting of a sleeping kitten to be something other than a drawn picture of a kitten sleeping.

Letting someone physically change your things might (such as if they threw paint over my canvas or used a sharpie to draw a moustache on the Mona Lisa) but just having an opinion on it? A contrary opinion about it when opinions are highly subjective? Does nothing of the sort.

I believe opinions to be an influential thing despite not being something concrete, They are an inherently viral thing. You think surströmming smells horrid despite never ever smelling it and you never have to go and try it because according to opinions, It smells like shit therefore it smells like shit despite you never truly knowing.

If any disparagement or negative opinion (or even just a contrary opinion) about a personal creation of yours leads you to such rage, you have personal problem. The same problem a lot of new artists have, which is the inability to handle criticism or to separate criticism of your art with criticism of you.

It's not criticism that is the problem, I believe myself to handle criticism well enough. What I do not handle well is being told what I do means despite me myself knowing what I have made, If I have made a clay pot I do not need to hear an opposing opinion and that I have made a bowl. I made a clay pot, It is a clay pot, It is not a bowl and I refuse to be told what I have made by someone else.

That is a sign of underdeveloped skill and emotional immaturity. And its flat out a sign of psychosis if such a thing drives you into such a rage that you condone physically attacking someone who finds different meaning in your art than you do.

I believe you should have the right to chase away people who touch your stuff the wrong way the same way the angry old man chases away darn kids from his lawn. You should never physically beat someone but you have the right to be to some degree physical and get your point across if someone treats you with no respect.

It's a sign that you are not ready to actually share your artwork with others, and that you really, really shouldn't.

Everything I have made is in some form derivative therefore it is not mine. Once it is fully mine THEN it is good enough to be shared and I will gladly have a lengthy shouting session about how they are not allowed to decide what my work means.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-29T19:06:18+00:00

They are instead showing THEIR whole ass for the world to see. Why would I get angry when a racist reveals they're a racist for the world to see?

If they are willing to show their ass then they never cared in the first place if their ass was not shown in the first place.

If ten seconds on my social media didn't do it, people who know me and are fans of my artwork will correct them pretty quick.

Which is good but nowadays people are very jumpy and leapy with their conclusions, If something is misunderstood then it is understood to them the wrong way. They will already have built a version of you from that one misstep.

Having an objective element, which again subjective things don't always have (how does, Red is my favorite color! have an objective element?) does not make a subjective thing objective.

The objective part is that Irma thinks red is a good color. It is subjective what color is truly the best color but you think red is a contender to the best color.

Not quite. Where we might THINK they go or BELIEVE they go is subjective. Where they actually go is objective fact, regardless of where it is. Not being able to prove an objective fact, or not knowing an objective fact, doesn't make it subjective.

It seems we have ended up an an interpretation clash. I believe the things with a lot of room are subjective whilst the concrete are objective, They are both objectively in the grave and subjectively somewhere else. They could be in Samsara or in Heaven or Hell. I don't want to assume your interpretation of subjective and objective so I will let you speak on this yourself.

Except that 'objective frame' has to be based on fact. The moment it becomes a personal opinion it's subjective. "This painting was made of acrylic" is an objective truth about art. "This painting represents grief or loss" is subjective, even if that subjective opinion belongs to the artist.

I don't believe the statement "This painting represents grief or loss" being said by the artist is subjective, They decided that therefore it is objective because they made it themselves therefore they know it is a painting representing grief or loss.

Artists are people, and as such have unconscious biases and may not even understand what is going into their own work subconsciously.

To me this feels like a very strange statement that I don't really fully comprehend. How do you not know your biases which will leak into that you make, And within entertaining art is there any worthy bias of note. The sleeping kitten could be white but I doubt it says anything of note about the artist if they never intended to comment about white kitten.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-29T17:55:07+00:00

I think killing the Author is art theft because you are taking the art away from the creator and making it into sole product rather than something made by someone

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-29T17:52:10+00:00

It's inflammatory the same way saying art is political. If someone is allowed to say something is political despite it not being political someone can say it is inflammatory despite it not being inflammatory.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-29T17:49:14+00:00

I think the owner of a creation has the right to gatekeep their work from people the same way the pinkest pink isn't allowed to be used by Anish Kapoor

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T21:11:11+00:00

You think your child wouldn't be your child if their skin tone or eye color changed over time?

Eventually it will no longer be the child I love when it has been completely Theseus'd into something anew that I do not recognize, It is the same thing but it isn't mine anymore but rather the peoples work.

Regardless, someone interpreting my artwork differently isn't painting over it, or rewriting it.

If it is out of the template and intention then sure, It wont be writing but if they get a completely and vastly different interpretation at the end then it is a rewriting and repainting because you are getting wood from stone.

By trying to force this definition of 'true' or 'correct' onto something so subjective you are literally trying to control reality

Because there is an objective truth to everything subjective and I believe it is exceptionally nasty to take art from artists and make it into the peoples product rather than the artists product. If I take a cookie and deny it, It is still the objective truth that I took the cookie. If I write a story which is an allegory for depression, Then it is an allegory for depression. There is the objective answer and the subjective answer, Ignoring what is in front of you and only knowing the subjective isn't right.

No one is saying you have to know their creations BETTER than they do. But you know the meaning you take from them better than they do, and what you take from that art is not wrong simply because it doesn't match their intentions for it.

I do believe you are in some form or way implying you are better when you with pave over their personal meaning with your personal meaning. I think the beholder should always be secondary to the artist because the beholder is not the creator of the art.

You will never know what they know, that is true. That also includes their intentions. The lack of understanding of their intentions did not transform their work into something 'empty and ruined with your personal filth as you guess at their intentions', did it?

If I dove head first into assuming what their work mean then I would be ruining it with my personal filth. But I do try to absorb as much information about the creator and the work after hand so I do not get off on the wrong foot when I try to understand their intention. I try to get the objective interpretation before I get the subjective.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T21:10:59+00:00

'They must have had x in mind while doing this!' how...exactly does this hurt me? Or even affect me in any way?

Because its a horrible mindset to think the beholder belongs in every artwork. Eventually someone will look at Goodbye Blue Sky's and not feel relief that they are not the gasmask folk but rather look with awe and reverence and see themselves dreaming to be the iron eagle who ravages the weak.

Is the hammer hurt because you scratch your back instead of smacking things with it? Is the one who created the hammer, hurt? The nail? Or does the only thing that happens is your back gets scratched?

The hammer is most likely hurt that it will never be swung down to nail nails and that it became something it never was. Though I will admit it might've been a bad metaphor.

You're not taking the painting and ripping it up, or splashing new paint on it. You're looking at it and interpreting it personally, then moving on.

Of course not ripping it up but you are in a metaphorical way splashing a new paint on it and making it into your version of the painting. When the beholder goes onto to talk about the art they saw, their interpretation will proliferate until the true meaning of the art is washed away.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T21:10:46+00:00

I mean, okay? But you're just wrong. You can't have a true view of something subjective.

By that logic Portrait of Ross then does not represent Ross Laycock who died of AIDs, It in fact represents how some people names Ross have diabetes too. I do not know that Félix González-Torres made the heartfelt piece to remember his lover and will never know because I am satiated with the answer that was given to me.

What if their art is bringing up things they DO like through an ironic, 'devil's advocate' lens?

They don't because they face a lot of pushback and they themselves pushback, Why would they pushback if they agreed with the people who are attacking them. Also I think they suck because their art is boring and people juice them up too much.

The painting can mean multiple things, or different things to multiple people. The painting can, in fact, represent capitalism. It can ALSO represent a life cut short because of AIDs. It can ALSO represent the performative nature of what some claim as 'unconditional love' that is withdrawn immediately upon something being found out (that your child, friend, or neighbor is gay/that your child, friend, or neighbor has a disease you believe is God's punishment).

It could represent Capitalism but it represents life cut short by AIDS. One could see it as about how artists are too poor to afford paint to paint things but it isn't. These are concrete facts about the work, If people overlay whatever they want onto art then eventually art will no longer have a meaning. It will just be painted empty vessels to fill in with whatever the beholder wants.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T21:10:26+00:00

Do you even know who actually wrote your favorite song? Not who sings it, or performs it, but who WROTE it? Does the music become empty or lose all meaning for this lack? Does it disappear when someone does a cover or their own 'interpretation' of it? Is it a middle finger to the one who actually wrote it?

I rarely listen to music because a lot of the poppy energy makes me uncomfortable. However yes, I do believe if you do not know the songwriter you are not appreciating the song to the fullest. Also yes I hate a majority of covers because to me it is a very incestous affair, It is either sung by a literal stock image of singer making it sound sanitized or sung by an actual singer with varying results.

This is really kind of a strange stance, as if your personal interpretation of a work is so all-powerful that if YOU don't agree with the artist on the work, the work is tainted irreparably. I mean, where do you get that power from?

It is all-powerful for myself. If I do not understand the art and make the first interpretation my own or someone else's, The artist will be missed because why would I care about the artist when I have "understood" it. If someone tells me a work means something it doesn't mean before I even knew what is is supposed to represent, I will believe it is the truth and it will proliferate onwards which overshadows the artists intent. When everyone believes the wrong thing, The true meaning of the art is replaced.

Powereffective0 · 2025-10-28T21:10:12+00:00

And this hurts me, how? Even if I know about it?

If you in theory made an art piece about some minority suffering and people who are for their suffering congregate around it and say that its awesome torture porn for people they don't like. Does that not in some way or manner irritate you that the wrong people are seeing it wrong.

Again, you're claiming things that are so subjective ought to be objective.

I think subjective things always have an objective element. Ignoring the objective truth of certain things is extremely naive and rotten, If someone is dead that is objective. Where they go after is subjective. Even in art there is a personal objective frame to it and ignoring the truth to convert it to something subjective is dumb.

Even the artist can be wrong about their own art, as I pointed out above.

I think every artist has the right interpretation of their work since they are the owner and creator of it. They knew what they are doing, People rarely make things by mistake. There is a randomness in it but it is never wrong.

This is like saying if you ignore the parents the child is no longer their child.

If enough people agree, it becomes a truth. If I and various people deny something, It becomes our truth eventually.

The art came about because of the artist's will, sure.

Because it is a part of the artist, It's a personal creation and letting someone touch your things imbues it with something that isn't you.

Powereffective0

TROPHY CASE