I'm most interested in games and literature. Video games are the only medium I can think in with any sort of flow, thinking in coherent sentences is really difficult (that's why it takes me so long to respond, sorry again about that). I think literature is a much better way of interacting with reality through art, my thinking on video games is usually either generating realities or exploring within the medium (they do have a unique ability for placing the player in liminal spaces though which is a very interesting way of interfacing with reality). Games' disadvantage is that they're overtly art, there's less possibility for "is this real?" in them than there is in writing (there are examples though when it comes to authorship and the story surrounding it's creation. Sad Satan is like that. The Beginner's Guide is a very interesting one. I've wanted to make games that touch this mode of thinking too, and I'm sort of convincing myself now that I'm wrong to suggest they're less powerful than literature for it, but there are things writing is just better for. Language is true by default, that's what it was developed for, while games are fiction by default and you have to try very hard to touch the player's idea of truth. When I'm free I want to explore the world, and I'll probably make a blog or something of stories from my travels, partly for the sake of communication but partly as a medium of creation. I'd invent characters and places and warp the aesthetics of occurrences and myself, not to convince people of a lie (I wouldn't care if people knew or not) but as a way of crystalising ideas and altering my way of experiencing reality. All communication breeds aesthetic, topological and factual parasites in the speaker and the receiver, what I want to do is be aware of and engineer those parasites to be forces for good.
Sorry for not closing that parenthesis by the way, the more I continued that line of thought the more dumber it felt to put a ) at the end.