This post is for the mortals who are yet willing to accept that overstepping the boundaries does not always lead to demise and that even Gods can be motivated by one-sided and selfish plans.

For months now has Sapience diligently fought to mend what had been breached, to challenge a false intrusion into a Divine Realm, a heresy against true Art - or so we are told. These are apparitions of nature and purpose yet unknown, holding promise yet concealed, awoken through the creative power invested into the sketches of a single artist.

Many questions remain unanswered. But one can be asked before others: why did mortals challenge these apparitions? To return the stolen? A desire for help can at least be understood, but this taken possession is not truly gone. It is reformed, manifested for all to witness (and for some to fall to), presented in vibrancy it would not otherwise possess. To protect Sapience? But how many of the apparitions posed actual harm to the uninvolved, how many more dangers were left by us to exist, and why did the Great Bard choose to speak to us as if we would be doing Him a favour on His Divine request if ignoring it was not an option?

No. There is a much clearer reason: Lord Scarlatti Himself decreed it heretical. This alone was enough for His most naive servants to follow His will and for those used to relying on the Divine wisdom to follow them.

It would be unfar to claim that the actions of our unknown meddler bear full creativity within them, for they merely altered another's art. No, in this case form and content come from different origins. And yet, in their unforeseen union, did a new work arise. This work, if you are only willing to see past what you are getting told, is a free verse of visual art, a play leaving the stage and walking among its audience, a facet of Art becoming unbound.

The fewer lines exist to define the borders of Creativity, the harder it becomes to define Art itself. Perhaps this is what the God of Arts truly fears - this writer is but a mortal, and leaves this irreverent question to your judgement. But does an artist have reservations when facing the possibility of achieving greater heights of self-expression? In this lies the greatest hypocrisy of the transpiring: the motivation driving us stems not from Artistry, but from Criticism at best.

When you next face a sketch brought into motion, I invite you to this: do not walk blindly into the path of excising what was manifested, for in this you risk losing a promise of a new artform observed or even developed. Do not accept others spoiling the stage with their misguided actions, for their only motive is trusting a Divine far removed from mortal interests and motivations. Instead, look for ways to let these manifestations remain - subdued if that's what your overbearing sense of self-preservation calls you to do, unsubdued if not, but standing monuments to Art nonetheless. It may prove to be a challenge, especially with these living sketches appearing as harmful and dangerous as they do (what was in the artist's mind?), but Sapience has overcome these challenges before. Find the four wyverns if you want an example.

Let us act, Sapience.

In observance turned contention,
Ulvin Zusir

---

"...Manifesting Art would be kind of incredible, though."
"Careful, Aspirant. What you speak is heresy of the highest order."

Penned by my hand on the 10th of Miraman, in the year 959 AF.