gaze & structure

Ambivalent inclination towards& against classification and delimitation.
Hostility towards structure, negative attitude in regards to construction of inert concepts/stratification; limitation.

Complete rejection is impossible.
An inclination towards classification and a rejection of fluidity as inexpressible often inadvertently leads to the compulsion to claim incomplete ideas as unequivocal truth; despite acknowledging the limits of reason and understanding and the deceitful nature of these things, a more useful tool has yet to be found. Yet utility itself as a measurement of value does create a self-fulfilling product of sorts; reason is useful, utility is a reasonable element to value in search/action. Constructs such as language, poetry, fashion, film, visual art, fiction, time(/epochs, not as a physical phenomenon), etc. are limited due to man's finite nature. To disregard the structural boundaries within them would be to disregard their existence, as structure is integral. An attempt to subvert expectation really only places emphasis on the expectation's significance within larger motifs in the same way that innovation for the sake of itself is worthless (though it must be said that a direction of the gaze away from the concept's structural nature can coexist with an understanding of said nature and as a modification of it rather than a complete rejection).

Gaze; an author's intention. The exhibition of an object creates a gaze upon the object. A simple example of how it falls upon an inert object: an orange exists in the middle of a void. When observed, the gaze will be directed at the orange and its qualities. A simple example of the same idea but with an object in motion: a woman in a void, holding an orange. The gaze will be directed at the woman's act (that of holding the orange, the qualities of the act, such as the attention she herself directs at the orange, whether she exhibits or hides it, the firmness of her grip on it, etc.), rather than either her or the orange. Any creation that has an author (named or not) is necessarily an object in motion, as it is a manifestation of the author by default (of course, in a theological sense, everything is in motion, but we don't quite need to take this notion into consideration yet). Any work with structure, one that acknowledges its origin at the hands of man, is necessarily perceived as an extension of its creator, regardless of whether the author wishes to be attached to it. It can be said that an attempt to direct the attention of the gaze away from oneself and towards an object constitutes an illusion of separation or rejection; the application of structure upon the substance of the subject (intentional refinement through social repertoire/cultural manifestation). Inversely, exhibition of the self (as opposed to the first scenario, exhibition of the object and cowering of the subject) directs the gaze towards the act of hiding or rejecting the imposition of social structure upon this substance, and as such reads as a lack of refinement (that isn't to impose judgement, as the gaze will necessarily refer to this set of social structures in order to create an exchange of attitude).