External/Internal(Weapon/Womb)

Weapons are offensive power. They point outward defending the encircled wagons from the marauding unknown. However, like the outer membrane of a cell, though they can protect the are also expressly permeable. The weapon's main duty is not to protect, but attack. Expressly created for destruction the weapon only protects through action. When it is rendered nonfunctional by whatever means, whatsoever it henceforth protected is exposed.

The offensive weaponry provides a temporary defense, but it is controlled by what it is holding at bay. While trained on the external, it is nonetheless guided by those internalized facets of the external and their singular reinterpretation called the self. As the external is destroyed, so it creates that which brings its own destruction, and in the destruction of the external the internal is deprived of its source. Offensive power can only bring destruction, and can only maintain its power through destruction. Ultimately it is either destroyed by an external mechanism or brings about its own destruction.

In direct opposition to weaponry both ideologically and functionally is protection. Protective structures and defensive fortifications function by their very existence, whereas weaponry must be used, activated before it can achieve its use. Where weapons must intercept and interact with both the internal and external, protection walls off the exterior and prevents its intrusion and effects upon the protected. Offense is engagement where defense is isolation; one is destruction one is sustenance. Through defenses contact and exposure is controlled and moderated, the elements of danger rendered impotent or repelled outright.

In defense there is security. On the offensive there is always a permeating awareness, the looking out upon that which must be destroyed. Every sense and intuition must remain honed and alert to maintain the outward surveillance and evaluation. Safe within impenetrable defenses the mind can rest; relaxation and contentment may be had in the absence of vigilance. In supreme isolation and removal from the external, the internal is rendered both safe and blissful. The caveat is that with total isolation comes total reliance. When every input must come through a defense, the defense itself becomes the de facto provider. Thus, paradoxically with utter protection comes utter vulnerability. While the defense may stop all approaching threats, if it fails to allow that which is needed to survive to pass, it is itself as dangerous as the assaults it exists to deflect.

The gun is the ultimate personal object of offense, in the womb is the ultimate personal place of defense.

Directions

It seems there are two directions I have to explore. One the weapon-studded outside of the protective cocoon, the other the soft comforting interior. I'm more drawn to the exterior, as it is the face displayed to the world, and as such draws my creative energies naturally. However, I feel the internal may be closer to myself, figuratively as well as physically. Perhaps there's a way to integrate the two so that viewers can feel both comforted and threatened, or alternate between the two based on their perceptions or orientation to the piece(s).

Dreaming

When I was a child I had a dream. I dreamt I had found the perfect position. My body was coiled as it needed to be. Wrapped up upon itself, swaddled in blankets, I had found the perfect alignment of muscles bones and fabric to reach that which is unreachable. When I was curled like this I could fall asleep instantly. It was the echo of the feeling I had in the womb. The womb is the essence of safety. Inside nothing is known of the world, of its dangers and trials. In a warm bed I could replicate this feeling. Only then could I sleep the sleep of the nascent, of the one who was without fear and without pain. I was not only comfortable, but immaculately secure and safe.

Somehow by a twisted sense of fate and irony the force and power of weaponry emulates that feeling of inter-womb security. Through the abject destruction of all who threaten, nay exist, I am secure in my own existence and enveloped in love and security. I must build weapons of destruction to secure my own survival, to satisfy that basest of instinct and ensure my genes continue on to the next generation. I will strive with the core of my being to find that which makes me the most secure in the destruction of all who oppose me, as only through the power to destroy do I hold the power to keep myself safe. I must create that which can sustain me.

creation is surviaval
survival is overpowering
overpowering is destroying

CREATION IS DESTRUCTION.

Safety.

To me, love feels like safety. That "safe" feeling drives me to protect myself against the dangers of the world. Life would be constant fear and stress without the small bits of safety and assuredness. From driving a car you trust to protect you in a crash to curling up in your bed at night, these moments of security keep us comfortable and functional.

Safety however revolves around power. If you are not powerful enough monetarily, you cannot afford the car that will protect you or the medical care needed to save your life. If you are not powerful enough physically you can be overcome by attackers or illness. If you are not powerful enough mentally, you can be overcome by trauma or emotion.

Biologically I am compelled to be safe. Throughout the blog I've spoken to weapons and the idea of lethal force as the utmost of physical power. The weapon itself emanates power; its as intimidating as a ferocious dog chained just out of reach, straining against a chain you're not sure will hold. Death is the ultimate power, and paradoxically wielding it is the only sure protection from it. One can only assure they will not be killed by being able to kill all who would kill them.

I am driven with an interest in weaponry. To create my own implements to ensure safety. Logically I know I am as physically safe as is possible, but the desire and thought remain. Thus, I am compelled towards weapons. I know the root of my compulsion, and I see it for what it is. I am not a slave to it, but it must be heeded. I can channel these urges into war games. Tuning a gun to play airsoft, constructing a paintball gun that functions with reliability and endurance, designing a paintball turret to project power from a safe distance.

Each of these woks carries with it the threat of death in its physical presence and appearance. The airsoft rifle is a one to one replica of a modern rifle. The paintball weaponry echos the form of modern weapons just as its function emulates them. To the unknowing observer, the barrels still project the threat of death. Entering their presence should make viewers uncomfortable, inverting the feeling of safety.

weaponized art

The Yes Men and the Calgary Oil and Gas Expo

vivoleum

Weapons, Evolution, Power

Towards the end of the last post I spoke on the power of weapons overriding even that of biology. This got me to thinking how technology, and specifically military/weapons-based technology has influenced human biological advancement. Our physical bodies are interesting in that they do many things passably. A gibbon is adept at climbing, a gazelle can run quickly on land, and a dolphin swims swiftly, yet none of these animals can do all of the mentioned activities. Humans can accomplish all of these tasks, though not as proficiently as any one animal that is specialized for the task. We can exist being such generalists, as our technology readily fills the gap between us and specialized animals.

Early on, those with the better weapons were both more able to kill prey animals and defend themselves from predatory animals, enabling more of their genes and societal customs to be passed on to the next generation. With agriculture, the evolution of weaponry ensured success by protecting livestock from predators, and defending land from rival societies.

Modern weapons fill the same roles, only on a much broader scale.

Weapons in Nature

In my last post I started talking a bit about the switch that occurs between tool and weapon. The threat aspect I uncovered is definitely something I'd like to incorporate into my work, but in this post I'd like to touch on the distinction between animals and humans where weapons are involved.

The chimpanzee example given is relatively clear-cut, but what of means of killing that are not technological in nature? Are a tiger's claws weapons? How about the fangs and venom glands of a viper? If these are weapons, what of a human's hands?

I'm of the mind that a weapon must be something from outside the body. Those enhancements provided by nature and evolution, while certainly deadly, are body parts no less than a head or leg. In order to be a weapon, the object must be re-purposed or specifically created to inflict damage and/or death.

In this regard, humans have an overwhelming wealth of weapons. This is in direct contrast with our weak biological endowment of deadly organs and systems. Our teeth and jaws cannot clamp down on windpipes or sever arteries, our fingers and toes lack claws, and we are neither venomous nor poisonous. Interestingly, our technological advantages often trump even our biological ones. The emaciated man with a gun will still win out against the fit man unarmed. Instead of survival of the fittest, we end up with survival of the well-armed. One could argue that creation and/or procurement of weapons is a function of the fittest minds, but that is a topic I'll touch on in another post.