All conflict and understanding.

The impossibility of finding balance within myself—an equilibrium of soul and thought within my very core—caused the word no to spring to the tip of my tongue as I followed the article down the length of its pages.  I find the idea of collectivism detestable and brotherhood deplorable, though I can rationalize their existence.  Society demands and requires groups to make sense of all that remains to be understood, especially in that which we call art.

Relational aesthetics calls the whole of mankind to come and see, to know there is a common thread running through humanity and tying the strings of Is.  In this way, the artist does not abandon that which should be held above all else:  the self.  A conglomerate of selves, in form of the word collective unit, group, allows outsiders to the work to see different parts of humanity and of the reality called the world revealed in the pieces pulled from each individual artist.  It is the self-formed mirror of the subconscious that permits the relation of one human being to another through two- or three-dimensional space.  The artwork has the tremendous capacity to reflect the human experience because its creation was all experience; its essence laid bare in the act.  Humanity can be seen in art so long as the painters, the sculptors, the photographs--even the amateurs--poured from the core in a simultaneous conscious and unconscious act of making.

Multiple authors, one piece.  Each being is a shadow of the form of humanity and enabling the shadows to be collected in one place, such as an artist group, gives a clearer sense of the form.  Collectivism, in this case, does not eliminate the man alone--the individual--but, rather, reveals a sea of souls within the oneness of a piece of art.  The unit is a temple and a transmogrifier, housing the separate selves in their untouched state and reshaping the individual cores into the mold of a unified whole.