A Roque of Ixpremiads

Lode, the waining trembles of sentient orthonauts fly! What dreamy and miasmic turnbulls wait in the gnarly wings? One treads not on such dainty, delicate tomes. The festooned reliquaries grumble and hum with unsanitary expectations. One does not suffer such imbrications lightly.

– Stout heart! Fondle knot the tender eggs of men! Your unfiled nails might scratch and tear and summon sanguine leakage upon your hands and the earth between your feet!

Crimson fluids gush from fresh rent flesh and congeal into wrens and rooks and other winged beasties. Clear water, fecund with womanish stuffs wash away the evidence, but the roque remains. Do not fear the ixpremiad, but embrace it. Make it your own. Color it in scents of pastures and loose-clothed mornings like the marmalade of the Sun, sweet up front and bitter at the back.

Centurion! Do you heed the warnings of your sister’s mother? What works for her falls flat for you. Sitting in static at the foot of your birthing bed, Time’s gondola and gambit conspire to dongle to the status quo. Such translations rarely do justice to the anticipation and afterscent of desire’s placenta.

©2017 Stuart Dummit

My Heart Is Exposed



  1. My Heart is Exposed
  2. My Heart is Exposed: Breached
  3. My Heart is Exposed: Murdered
  4. My Heart is Exposed: Alive

There is nothing real here, only the exposure of my heart. The cool pain of nakedness. The fear of discovery. The remorse of trust.

©2016 Stuart Dummit.

Regarding the Inevitability of Reflexion (a fragment)

What is it that I believe?

I believe that I exist in as much as I think about myself and I think about things outside of my self. That I remember from one moment to the next, from one day to the next and back again that I have thought about myself and things outside of my self is as much an indicator that I exist as anything. There is no proof other than my own perception that anything inside or outside of myself “is,” so there is no accepting nor denying of it except through my acknowledgement of it. I do. I choose to believe that I exist. That is all that I can do and it is all that is necessary.

I believe in limits. There are boundaries to everything that I perceive. Even when I turn my attention to the infinite, it becomes finite in my perception because I am incapable of understanding or knowing intrinsically anything that has no limits. It is by virtue of limits that I am able to define things. By limiting any thing, idea, notion, concept, corporal substance or ephemeral miasmic nebula, I am able to say to myself, “this thing is this, but not that.” It becomes a part of a magnificently complex venn diagram, labeled circles and polygons inscribed on paper illustrating inclusion and exclusion, shared and non-shared qualities, boundaries and bleeds. Even the bleed, in its analog existence, has an area that includes and excludes it.

I believe in the coexistence of analog and digital measurements. I believe that there are measurements other than these and that I am not able to perceive them. This leads me to:

I believe there are things other than myself that exist independently from me. On some undefined level of existence or perception all things may, in fact, be connected and constitute a very different foundation for being perceived (not an “exists or does not exist” paradigm,) but that is outside of my current purview.


from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I believe in the existence of a higher power. To call this thing a god, or God, would be easy but would be incorrect. By giving it a name or category diminishes the work I have done in trying to understand this phenomenon and all too easily allows an element that I’ve addressed earlier to crush my current understanding of it; this higher power exists in a state where limits as I perceive them, do not exist. This thing cannot be a part of my venn diagram since it cannot be contained within a circle or polygon, anything outside of the mark creating that circle or polygon would not be included in my understanding of the higher power and thus disqualified – inclusion and exclusion are not qualities inherent to it. The problem, of course, is that inclusion and exclusion are things, and the higher power contains all things, either real or as potential, then they must be a part of it, or It. I can make a further case for this paradox if I speak to a notion that the higher power is somehow “self aware.” This would be for some a required quality of a god or God, but I wonder if this, for me (or us) lofty state of being is, to this god or God or higher power or Higher Power something so trivial that its presence or absence is irrelevant. Perhaps, and hopefully, the awareness of the meta-intelligence is so much more than can be imagined that to it or It, such awareness is petty and unheeded, much like any force of will required to maintain ones own presence. For some reason I just thought of Alice in the garden near the beginning of Through the Looking-Glass when she becomes aware that to stand still on the chess board she must move, and to move, she must stand still. Such is the dynamic of my imagined mind.

I believe that everything that I have thought or written up until this point could be, might be, should be, probably is, but might not be, completely or in some major or minor part, wrong.

I believe that swimming in the earth trumps walking on water.

I believe both that the only thing within my current perception is now, and that all things, all moments in time exist simultaneously.

This and the last three assertions of what I believe are like imperfections in the glass that constitutes the support for a mirror that I gaze into from the side, oblique, with no understanding of directionality or concept of tangential-ness.

Based on the construct I have created, or has been created for me, or simply that I find myself in, this episode of thinking about what I believe and do not believe, and the subsequent attempts to elucidate and validate them, is part of the inevitability mentioned in the title of this essay…

[At this point I stopped writing. I am certain that I had more to say, more to explore and write about, but for some reason I didn’t finish. Perhaps it was time to go to work, or the pot was over boiling, or there was a knock at the door. That last option, I can say with canny certainty, did not happen. This is not a bad bit of exploration, though not fully formed, and I question its ability to survive on its own, though I am moved to let it go into the wilds and see how it fares.]

©2016 Stuart Dummit

the continuing question of (f)art

Again, is it “art” if one of the tools used to create it has a mind (algorithm) of its own? Is it “art” if it is just well crafted? Is it “art” if it has no purpose other than to break up space on the wall behind your couch? I think it makes no sense to be so divisive. That is, until divisiveness is in my own best interest, and then I’m all for it. One must fight art disease at every turn. [The term art disease was coined in the 1970s by conceptual artist Richard Olson who defined it in terms of “the hardening of the categories.”]

With that bit of stupidity out of the way, I present to you a recent example of my electronic drawing, painting, and/or print making. The question is really, “does it make you feel anything? Is there an emotional response?” (and, again, not a rhetorical question.)


“I Am” Electronic Print. ©2016 Stuart Dummit


Report on Protoartistic Trends (excerpt)

Here is an excerpt from the D.E.S. Report on Protoartistic Trends Vol.1 No.2, issued on 9 February 2016. The full report can be downloaded as a PDF file from the link(s) below.

Important Information About Art   V1.01
Collated and presented by Stuart Dummit, D.E.S. Chief of Propaganda

(All assertions must be taken within the proper context for accurate deconstruction and absorption.)

6. Art is easily confused with artifice.
7. Craft is often misidentified as art.
8. Byproducts of artistic behavior are often confused with artifacts.
9. Art does not come into being by mere statement.
10. Art has nothing intrinsically to do with beauty.
11. Emotion and art are linked but not necessarily coexistent.

13. Art in its highest form transcends culture.
14. Art tends to be culture bound.
15. “Good” and “bad” are not terms that effectively apply to art.
16. Art is intuitive.
17. Art must be learned.

40. Art engages awareness.
41. Art is humorous.
42. Art is serious.
43. Art is enlightening.
44. Art is horrifying.
45. Public art propagates the public’s misunderstanding of art’s function.
46. The use of the term “art,” like “god,” “sex,” and “war,” will often result in  catastrophic misunderstandings.
47. Belief in art as a thing unto itself is destructive and  ignorantly myopic.
48. The monetization of the byproducts of artistic behavior removes the essential qualities of art from those byproducts.
49. Artifacts are byproducts of human behavior and can contain elements of art, but it is not a given.

Download the Report in PDF format here. The Report may be distributed freely in its entirety but may not be distributed in part without full documentation and attribution.

DES Report on Protoartistic Trends Vol1 No2


©2016 Stuart Dummit, D.E.S. Chief of Propaganda