1.) “The only way people can describe pain is to objectify it.”
2.) “When people forge tools or build things, they are often trying to alleviate discomfort. But first they must define the discomfort.”
The creative process has no objective origin regardless of its physically relative result. It cannot be ignored that, on an immaterial level, aspects of the artist are indeed what holds the result together. Art can portray pain and alleviate discomfort, but it can also radiate with happiness, drawing attention and inspiring others to create something unique as well. The former can inspire, but will not inspire everyone. Pain is a trivial matter; it is present as a reminder of our mortality, but blinds us in times of trial. The process of creation can be a therapy for this pain, but there is much more possibility for innovation beyond this once suffering has ended.
Not all discomfort leads to pain, and not all pain stems from discomfort. When discomfort is given definition and then exemplified in form, it is separated from the vessel that harbored it originally. While this may alleviate the range of discomfort to excruciating pain, it may undercut the purpose of this pain or discomfort. The world does not exist for life to be easy, regardless of how much humans contribute to this notion. Pain can serve as a teacher. To define art simply as another medicine, a mere loophole to avoid prolonged pain, makes evident how blind some are to the definition of creation. There isn’t one. To define is for some things to objectify, but for all things it is to relate them to other things such that they lose individuality.
The article challenges the mystery of creation, trying to define its intention with a formulaic rendering of that which is inherently random (lacking pattern or predictability).
But is she saying art is merely another medicine? I don’t think she says creating will solve pain but that pain is an integral part of creation’s engine.
“To define is to objectify but for all things it is to relate them to other things such that they lose individuality.” Do you mean that metaphor dissolves individuality, the unique experience, in favor of cosmic interconnectivity? Would you say that the more we try to parse our experience the less it is ours?