I agree, but you are being closed-minded if you presume that your opinion that nobody else will want to or be able to decipher something meaningful out of it is an objective fact rather than your own bias. That's more or less the definition of closed minded.
I can only go by what I see, and what others have said. I could be wrong, but unless I am given some reason to think that I am, it will be reasonable to operate as if I am not.
You assume that I make that assumption. I don't see a flaw at all, in either audience or communication.
If you attempt to communicate something, and that communication fails, then that failure was the result of something. That is the "flaw" to which I refer. If there was no flaw anywhere in the system of communication - no flaw in the message, in the medium, in the audience's attitude, in the audience's mental capabilities, in the "syntax" used, etc. - then communication would succeed, by definition. If it does not, then there is a flaw.
If your collage is not
meant to communicate anything, then there is no flaw, and also no purpose to posting it to an online forum (except perhaps for some non-communication goals, such as ego-stroking).
To me, there is no failure, and there is no fault. Trying to communicate the structure of consciousness (through consciousness) has always been a tricky business, which is why hermetic/alchemical explorations have always been notoriously impenetrable.
You contradict yourself. "There is no failure" ... "it's tricky business" ... "notoriously impenetrable". Well, what is it? If it's not failing, then why appeal to the tricky nature of the business, Immediacracy? The second sentence of this quote explains why "communicating the structure of consciousness" fails so often. Very well, but why also state that there's no failure? That's disingenuous.
There is no flaw. If people are ready to get it, then they do. If not, that's ok too. Maybe seeing it will trigger a future memory which will help them put things together. That's how it happened for me...
Again: The message here is that if you don't undertand (or "get it"), then the fault (i.e., the reason why you didn't "get it") is that you "aren't ready" (a personal flaw, in this context, since it leads to failure of communication). The fault couldn't possibly
lie with the medium, right? You have concluded apriori
that it cannot.
There is no way to determine whether there is an audience for art unless you communicate it in public. If artists let their idea of their audience determine the content of their art, there would only be commercial design.
That's an interesting perspective, if you consider your posts to be "art". Should everyone stop operating on the assumption that you are attempting to communicate with anyone? Should they seriously consider - as I do - that you are not genuinely attempting to communicate?