thinking about walking at a "botanist's pace". we as plant lovers, or mushroom lovers, or bug lovers, are so happy to stop every few feet to have a look at someone who other creatures might overlook; a little weed in the ground, a patch of moss, a spider, a mushroom. a botanist often walks at a slow pace. it has to stop often to gaze at things. we are like this, ask our loved ones
we like to sit somewhere that seems completely uninteresting and find the fractal of life, the more and more that pours out when you stop and sit somewhere
neuro-enforcers don't see how autistics can have such deep and sometimes allconsuming special interests in stuff they find "shallow" because autistics walk at a botanist's pace. they dont understand how we can find a universe of moss and lichen and bugs and weeds and details in a video game, in a movie, in a show, in an album, in a book.
the neuro-enforcers, enforcers of capitalist culture, want you to move on to the next thing, to leave the woods, to consume more. every movie or book or album or video game is just something to be Consumed and then move on to the next one and to dwell on one for a longer period of time is seen as weird, a disruption of the flow, like when they are mad at me for interrupting traffic by standing in the street so i can get a more beautiful view of the clouds, or to see the plants in the alleyway.
you can see an entire world of nuance and beauty in a single movie, in a single album, in a single video game. its only right to want to keep examinging it, to talk about it all you can. and there was so much that went into that piece of art. have you ever read movie credits? we have. so many people worked on it, so you could watch it once and then not keep thinking about it, instead just watch the next thing autorecommended by netflix 5 seconds into the credits?
they, the neuroenforcers only like our special interests when they are in a field that is "smart", that is "deep". like a science special interest. thats okay to them, and maybe you'll make them money. but having a special interest in something like a piece of media to them is "shallow", because they dont understand the depth of a single piece of media, they don't understand the impact it can have to sit there and see the moss. and copyright says you aren't allowed to elaborate on the media in certain ways, to build upon it.
and sometimes they try to frame their neuro-policing in progressive leftleaning terms, they talk about how you've "made a merchandise driven franchise your whole personality", they'll say that you're fixated on capitalist media that is "bad" or "problematic" because x y z (as tho we, as experts in that piece of media, needed someone to point out the flaws in it. we probably know more flaws than them. their critiques are not new or original ideas to us) or that any time we talk about it we are "giving them free advertising". or just its "cringe". as tho being affected by media produced under capitalism is supporting capitalism.
if i wrote a poem about lemon demon it might be seen as less than my poem about the creek, because its supposedly less "smart" to have a fixation on a piece of media (on a piece of art), so any art i make based on that is seen as being less smart too, or that its "hooked into the cycle of consumerism" but they can't see how our passion for particular pieces of media is born out of how unfair it is to draw lines on what is "real art", to expect us to not stand in awe of certain media because its "not real art" and that we're supposed to wear our anti-affecting mask when engaging with some art because we aren't supposed to be emotionally vulnerable towards some media that speaks to us because it was produced under capitalism (like everything else around us). we hate probably more than anyone that our special interest art is tied up in capitalism. we want to abolish that.
a person in "may tomorrow be awake" wrote an epic poem exploring the plot and nuance of planet of the apes. consider that! consider the emotoional depths and expertise-of-the-film and love and passion! being genuinely allowed to express artistically how you feel deeply about a piece of art, without judgement.
sorry for incoherency im too tired to speak normal language tonight
a piece of art about the creek is "real art"
a piece of art about a film is a "derivative work"
why is the art about one sensory being in the world elevated while the other is denigrated. how is it any more "original" to depict a landscape you had no hand in making? but the landscape is seen as inanimate, incapable of expressing itself or being its own kind of creative
in other words, it is free for the taking. it is in an artistic inspiration sense, land to be claimed.
whereas artistic beings with their providence in humans are already staked off property. they are elevated with special status, with legal agency, because a human made them, whereas the landscape has no legal agency or special status. you cannot pick berries on private property, you cannot make art on private property.