As we have shown above, the Concrescentist approach at the outset is highly systematic. It begins with an analysis and assessment of style, period, place, form, and method. It even tries to decipher the subconscious impulse by extracting and studying symbolic depictions that occurred in a particular era. It deliberately and systematically attempts at the outset to “graft” one into previous art movements, times, periods and places. This historical re-orientation is first of all a deliberate and reasoned attempt to disengage from the era in which we exist, thereby giving us a chance to escape from the constraints, the limitations, and confines which any era involuntarily imposes on those living within it. Secondly, it also gives us the option of creating a new point of departure from that which historically originated in any particular era by which we might have the opportunity of moving out of that time period artistically, along a different avenue than that along which history took. This process may again serve one of two other purposes: first, it gives us the opportunity to take the techniques from one era and overlay them on motifs and designs that issued from another. That is, it gives us a chance to borrow designs and motifs from one era and alter them according to the application of techniques from a different era or combine the techniques and methods from more than one movement or era in an attempt to evolve new avenues of artistic expression and in so doing, create new hybrid designs or forms. The entire thrust of Concrescentism then, is directed toward moving the creative process along different avenues than those which history took in an effort to open for us the possibility of realizing alternative avenues of creative approach in our efforts to evolve new forms. As the Bauhaus movement believed that “the ultimate aim of all creative activity is a building,” Concrescentism holds that the penultimate goal of creativity is design. Taking this into consideration is an assertion that form confers a higher order than two dimensional pictorial designs or motifs. The Concrescentist approach is both systematic and deliberate and its focus is directed toward the creation of well-defined shapes and forms. It is a methodical approach outlined by formulistic overtones that moves forward at the outset with well defined parameters and goals. In the last stages, however, it should be pointed out that formula must always be abandoned in favor of intuition and instinct.

     After the foundations and the method of approach have been systematically and deliberately laid after the formulas have been implemented after we have evolved a choice hybrid there is another final step which can be taken should we choose. This is the introduction of accident. In this case, we have the option of deliberately inducing accident. I would claim that the highest order of art takes place when an artist begins to interact with accident. While our induced “accident” may said to be contrived since we have deliberately caused it in a controlled manner, it should in no way loosed its effectiveness. By controlling it we are seeking to moderate the destructive effects of accident so they do not become destructive. That is, they alter – possibly radically – but do not destroy our piece. This introduction of accident and the artist’s response to it must be deliberate and studied. The results of the “accident” must be studied in the same way that a diamond cutter would study a diamond in order to determine how to proceed next. By no means must the piece subjected to an accident be left as it is. Beginning art students often do this and then after they have reduced a piece to junk, end up saying: “that’s the way I wanted it.” No, once we subject a piece to an “accident,” the truest the highest form of art is when the artist interacts with an accident – to remake the piece. This is Concrescentism at the highest level. The most unique and unforeseen hybrids result from this operation.

     While the effects of the “accident” introduce an unforeseeable consequence on the one hand if it is introduced carefully we can predict within certain parameters the extent of the effect. Once the accident “collides” with our piece( to coin a phrase) we are not nearly done. This is the most difficult part of the operation. The piece must be studied carefully and intently and redesigned taking the effects of the accident into consideration and integrating them into the piece. The piece may be subjected to another or even numerous accidental operants after which it is up to us to integrate the effects of each accident into the existing piece. Essentially each interaction between the artist and an accident is a permutation and we can stop the process at any point on the way.

     In talking with a philosopher friend it seems that Concrescentism is not so much an operation of phusis but of techne. There is a difference between the two. Concrescentism rejects the use of undefined and amorphous form, the idea of simply “growing forth” inherent in the meaning of phusis in favor of techne. While, in the last analysis, Concrescentism accepts and embraces the insights provided by intuition and emotion, it rejects the idea of pure emotional expression. In this respect, it could be seen in some ways as a reaction and response to some current movements embraced and followed in modern art. For instance the Fluxus and Neo-Expressionist movements have more in common with phusis, while Concrescentism has been more influenced by Cubism and Constructivism in that it embraces and espouses an approach based on techne. It could be said that Concrescentism along with its principles and ideals is a reaction to Fluxus. While terms and processes used to describe the two have an ironic similarity the works produced by the two movements stand in stark contrast to one another, so much so that the movements seem to be polar opposites.