I have realised that I have never written for myself in a coherent manner. Yes, your occasional nonsensical poems, that oppose themselves to anyone with slightly sensitive neurons, but these cannot be considered a mental exercise as much as a sentimental one. One does not try to reconstract the truth with the latter, but rather expresses the ambiguity of the incomprehensible unchanged. This, some may argue that is closer to the truth than any other simplification of it through a logical system. For me this is a difficult statement to argue against, mainly because I would contradict myself. In nature and in physics I believe the experiement to be the absolute truth - the interpretation to be but a modelisation that approaches and explains, but never fully describes. It is dangerous however to extrapolate thoughts about physics to living things, so I will dare to say that this does not apply for human matters as well.
In no case would I like to undermine poetry or music or indirect art. However, I feel that a lot of these concepts have been degraded as they may be more easily marketed as quick content. The duration of a poem is no longer how much time it takes to understand it and make it a part of you, but how much time it takes to read the words on the paper. The song lasts 3:23 minutes exact. The painting lasts 5 seconds not exact, depends on how fast you scroll.