HISTORICALLY, an idea inhabiting a soul found its expression applauded by the tribe’s hierarchy because it first awakened a collective neighbourhood vision — though limited, belonging to a greater usage. But the expression, whether it is fitting to tell of a time that had lapsed within anyone’s imagination, is subject to hostile and falsified interpretations that may need a new, lively, realistic interpretation, with proof, through the awakening of memories that lay imprisoned but contained probable significant awareness.

Before the science of flight entered our reality, mythical figures inhabited men’s imaginations — and still do. What is remarkable is that we have merged the phenomenon with the present possible; through warfare, paratroopers have, to a point, eclipsed angels in some simple, common conversations. This dialogue so far envelops the realistic interpretation of income development outside of what systems may be able to interpret, thus creating a vacuum with even the engaged levels of collective management if the brooding sector is guided by an authority system with a fractured hearsay, rather than the practical know-how, towards engagements on the fertile grounds of a common understanding of the creative movement indicated.
The ancient world, in comparison, through a quick view of their descendant nations, is still in a more active stance than the current school, still disputing itself in a most divisive mode. In coming to terms with any analogy on an engaged fact-find, one should highlight the need for a new rapport nurturing a new awareness and understanding that would clarify, improve, and project a more informed interpretation of any engagement on the subject of concepts of creativity, nurturing common ground, void of rapid assumptions that prevent bridges being built where wide gutters filled with suspicions exist.
The creative world in Guyana has, for many years, stood on its own. It did flourish, in the sense that we did things, but not as they should have been done. They did what they had to do, we applauded. For those who stayed here, they just declined; the artists and actors stayed at home. But some of us fell prey to Guyanese who came home with blown-up options that had one-sided success stories, especially the younger ones who had processed no clear understanding of a crafted position that they wished to progress from, or what is described as a “mou”; thus, they were dictated to on promises that were populated with imaginary fulfilments, void of any contribution shaped by their own dream-self.
I once managed two young musicians who fell into such a quandary. When they did come to me, “boat bin done gone ah falls.” The facts surrounding all this remain in conversations that must become common knowledge, as everyday as understanding that cashing a cheque requires a valid National I.D. card.