Music and..

 I've recently looked back on the past aspiring writers and why they ended up failing

There was a difference in values, except for the situation and various aspects.


They tend to place great importance on art, work, writers, and work itself. placing an absolute meaning on the permanence of the finished work itself So it seems that there has always been a compulsion for them to complete something.

The compulsion to complete something in a complete form before the end of this life...


On the other hand, although I liked to appreciate art, I didn't want to be a writer from the past, because art was also seen as one of the various aspects expressed in the fundamental human spirit.

Various patterns expressed in human nature-art, science, philosophy, engineering, etc.I saw it as one of many areas. I didn't think art was the only thing that was absolute and great.

What I was curious about was the existence of human beings, human nature itself, not art.

"What is a human being?" Only this question was gripping me.


It affirms the absoluteness of the completed work, but on the other hand, its creation is only an act expressed by any psychological pattern.

I think I'm closest to a linguist, a psychologist. So I can't really sympathize with certain arguments such as political orientation, some opinions that something is very meaningful and very important.

That argument was also made by the expression of any (linguistic) unconsciousness.


So I wanted to observe the psychological process of creating rather than the creation itself.

It was close to the tendency to observe what conscious-unconscious process the work was reached through.


So I didn't work hard on creation, and at some point, I was not interested in art at all and only studied, but I was greatly disappointed by my tendency to be an artist.

I thought I would work hard, study art harder and become a great writer, but I couldn't live up to their expectations...

Even now, I don't even feel the meaning of proof of artist activity, so I don't even apply. (Since I have my album, there was someone who asked me to apply for proof of artist activity and work hard on music and text.)


In addition, it was because I knew that even if I did art, I could not make better works than works of the past era. Originally, people with too high eyes are not good at creating.

Is it so important for a person named "I" to create, to do artistic work? Does "my work" mean that much? I don't understand.


The music I made is harder to like than other people's music that already exists. My work is more meaningful than their work because my identity is minor (ex. Asian, female, queer..) even though I can't make music itself more than my favorite people I don't think this is right. Music is just a form, not an identity.

The reason why critics find it difficult to create seems to be because of the high standards. He is frustrated by the fact that he is worse at writing than the works he gave him 1 star.

The same goes for music. He is so used to analyzing and judging that he cannot easily do his work.