An Artist's Ontology
Ian Goddard
(c) 1996 Ian Williams Goddard
ONTOLOGY: the study of the nature and
principles of existence. Aristotle called
ontology the "first philosophy."
THE ART OF IDENTITY
Art in all its media is a process of the creation and
expression of identities. An identity is a distinct entity
or state of being.
To exist is to posses identity. Identity is the basis of existence.
Identity is also the basis of thought and logic; accordingly,
the first law of Aristotelian logical thought is the Law of
Identity, which states: A is A.
An artist, being a creator and manipulator of identities,
enjoys an ideal position from which to observe and study
the nature of identity, which is the essence of ontology.
Let me share with you my observations as an artist.
THE ART OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF IDENTITY
PROBLEM: a painting of a cluster of orange lilies appears
dull and flat because the identity -- the size, shape, and
color -- of each flowers is virtually identical.
SOLUTION: create unique identities for the flowers that
creates the impression of depth, or space, in the painting.
Do this by making the flowers in the foreground brighter
relative to the flowers in the background.
Then create a focal point by most significantly altering
the identity of the foremost flower, flower A. Make flower
A the focal point by making A the brightest of all flowers.
To alter the identity of A in this fashion, we can take two
opposite courses of action:
1) Add darker paint to all flowers that are not-A
2) Add brighter paint to flower A
This is the point at which a new identity arises -- the all
important point in the inquiry into the nature of identity.
The fact that the new identity for A called "brighter,"
can arise from these two opposite courses of action
raises an all important question:
QUESTION: If altering the identity of not-A can alter
the identity of A, then where does the "identity," or
the nature, of A actually reside?
(1) in A
(2) in not-A
(3) in both A and not-A
ANSWER: The evidence before us -- alter not-A = alter A
-- allows for only one possible answer: the identity of
A resides (3) in BOTH A and not-A.
The identity of A is not a private property of A; it is a
* common property * of both A and not-A. The identity,
which is the nature, of A is not confined to the area of
flower A but is spread out over the whole canvas.
Identity is relative not absolute.
THE ART OF HOLISTIC LOGIC
The whole canvas, C, is a set that contains all its elements
-- flower A (a) and all flowers that are not-A (b, c, d,...).
Thus:
C = {a, b, c, d,...}
C covers all of C and thus C contains all the elements in C.
As we have just observed, the identity of A, being derived
from all elements in C, also covers all C. Logic therefore
dictates that, as A covers all C, the identity called "A"
contains all the elements in C, such that:
A = {a, b, c, d,...} = C
Therefore, as we have observed in fact -- alter not-A = alter A
-- and as we have expressed here in logic, the whole contains
the part, and the part contains the whole, due to the holistic
relative nature of the identity of a part.
The counter argument is that while A may be "brighter,"
after changes made to not-A. The RGB color rating of A,
99-66-0, remains the same both before and after changes
to not-A. The counter counter is simply that the nature of
99-66-0 changes. Sometimes 99-66-0 is bight, somethings
it is dark, it is many things, not one.
If there was only the one color 99-66-0, there would in fact
be no color rated at RGB 99-66-0, for this rating describes
percentages of three different colors. Therefore, as a matter
of indisputable fact, "99-66-0" can exist ONLY in a field of
different colors, and NOT by itself. This holds for every color.
Every color, every thing, every A, is relative, and the relative
exists only in the whole, thus: A = {A, not-A}.
THE ART OF CONTRAST
The identity called "A" is not contained in the item called "A."
A is contained in the * contrast * between A and not-A. Identity
is contrast. Contrast is not located anywhere specifically, contrast
is nonlocal, and thus, as identity is contrast, identity is nonlocal.
The identity of A is therefore everywhere and is equivalent to
the whole.
The western tradition of Aristotelian logic conditions us to see
things in an atomist fashion. Atomism is as tortured as it is false.
The atomist view sees the identity, or nature, of a thing, A, as being
the private property of item A, when in fact, as we have observed,
the identity of A is a shared common property.
THE ART OF THE ARTIST
Art is the play of relational contrasts. Accordingly, everything
about art expresses the principle of relational identity. For example,
the identity of an artist is not only in his anatomical body, the artist's
identity is also in his entire body of work -- his identity is spread over
his entire area of influence.
Accordingly, the artist whose work is unseen and thus
influences no one, has no identity. An identity that is
not shared, that is totally isolated, is a nonidentity. Free
from contrast, there can be no identity. Even the man
in solitude can only know "me" in contrast to "not-me."
Contrary to Western logical theory, the isolated atomized
identity existing free from contrast is an impossibility.
What is more, an artist's identity is not only spread out
over his work, but is spread out still further into the contrast
between his the work and the works of all other artists. Your
favorite artist is "your favorite artist" only in contrast to those
less favored -- not-A creates A creates not-A...
Still further, the identity of an artist's work is not only spread
over the contrast of all works of art, but is ultimately spread
over *everything* that you know. For example, a piece of art
appeals to you because it reminds you of a special feeling,
place, or time, which is special in contrast to other feelings,
places, and times not as special. Or because it is totally
unique in contrast to everything you've ever known.
Thus the artist's identity is spread out over all known things,
space and time. Renior is a part of Pollock is a part of Monet
is a part of Warhol is a part of Van Gogh is a part of happiness,
is a part of madness, is a part of the landscape, is a part of the
sky, is a part of the stars... All identity is unified -- that is the
highest artistic, mystical, and religious experience.
THE ART OF ART
As any artist knows, even the slightest alteration on a canvas
changes the identity of the whole piece, thereby changing the
identity of even the most distant features on the canvas. This
is the essence of design.
One flawed or missed note in a song or line in a play alters
the whole performance, thereby altering the identity of every
single feature in even the most remote regions of the whole piece.
Clearly, we can see that each part derives its nature from the
whole, just as the whole derives its nature from each part. The
whole contains each part and each part contains the whole,
and thus the part is naught but the whole. This is holism.
Each part, A, is A only in contrast with all that is external to it,
which is not-A. Therefore, all that is outside A is actually inside
the identity of A, and thus the identity of A is identical to (=) the
identity of the whole: A = (A + not-A) = the whole.
==========================================================================
IAN GODDARD GRAPHICS: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/graphics.html |
=========================================================================|
THE ABSOLUTE REALITY: http://www.erols.com/igoddard/reality.html |
=========================================================================|
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed" Noah Webster
==========================================================================
Barbie Kew
>
>A N A R T I S T'S O N T O L O G Y
>
>(c) 1996 Ian Williams Goddard
>
>
>ONTOLOGY: the study of the nature and
>principles of existence. Aristotle called
>ontology the "first philosophy."
I find your analyses severely limited and quite flawed, but
lacking your locutious eloquence of expression, and the analytical
skills you possess, I won't try to debate the Aristotle-ian with you.
Speaking as an artist, I would like to skip to:
>THE ART OF ART
>As any artist knows, even the slightest alteration on a canvas
>changes the identity of the whole piece, thereby changing the
>identity of even the most distant features on the canvas. This
>is the essence of design.
I have no idea why you conclude this. I am quite capable of making
slight changes without it affecting the whole. IF you are talking
purely philosophically, then you may have a point. But if you are
talking practically, then you are way off base. For example: Let's
assume I am painting a realist landscape and the house that is but
one element of the scene has windows with multiple panes. I can
add or subtract panes at will without it affecting any other aspect
of the scene. If it is a house that comes from my imagination, then
I am the arbiter of the number of panes.
>One flawed or missed note in a song or line in a play alters
>the whole performance, thereby altering the identity of every
>single feature in even the most remote regions of the whole piece.
This may be true if the window and its panes are not in keeping
with the reality of the way in which I have painted the house. But
if it is an impressionistic view, the window may need NO panes
in order to convey its identity. If it is in super-real mode, then I
may need to paint in minute detail in order for the window to
look as if it belongs. But I can't imagine a circumstance wherein
the number of panes would be an issue for the viewer, nor would
it affect the viewers enjoyment of, or interpretation of, the rest of
the painting. That is--when the window is but a minor element in
the otherwise sweeping scope of the landscape.
--
888888888888888888
Barbie Kew
Smoke'n 'em.
888888888888888888
Ian Goddard
> > A N A R T I S T'S O N T O L O G Y
> > THE ART OF ART
> > IAN: ...even the slightest alteration on a canvas changes
> > the identity of the whole piece, thereby changing the
> > identity of even the most distant features on the canvas.
> > This is the essence of design.
> I am quite capable of making slight changes without it affecting
> the whole... For example: Let's assume I am painting a realist
> landscape and the house that is but one element of the scene has
> windows with multiple panes. I can add or subtract panes at will
> without it affecting any other aspect of the scene.
IAN: Alteration to the panels of the window will effect relative
alterations to the identity, or nature, of distant regions on the
canvas, when the canvas is seen in whole. Proof:
Suppose that the area external the widow (not-W) is very smooth
and uniform, without much detail. Now suppose the window panels
(W) are very complex and detailed. This creates a contrast between
simple and complex, and in so doing will identifies not-W as "simple"
and W as "complex."
Because their identities are related, we can then alter the ID of both
by altering the ID of only one. If you make W more complex, you
make not-W more simple *in contrast.* ID is only relative.
> > IAN: One flawed or missed note in a song or line in a play alters
> > the whole performance, thereby altering the identity of every
> > single feature in even the most remote regions of the whole piece.
> This may be true if the window and its panes are not in keeping
> with the reality of the way in which I have painted the house. But
> if it is an impressionistic view, the window may need NO panes
> in order to convey its identity. If it is in super-real mode, then I
> may need to paint in minute detail in order for the window to
> look as if it belongs.
IAN: You observe, in accord with the law of relational identity, that
a distinction between the style of the window and not-window will
alter the whole. We agree.
If the window and its panes are surreal, and the rest of the painting
realistic. That creates a contrast, not-W is "normal" and W is
"not-normal." If everything was uniformly "realistic," the ID
"realistic" would never arise, except in the relation of this
piece of art to other not-realistic pieces of art, which would
then classify the realistic as "the realistic."
> But I can't imagine a circumstance wherein
> the number of panes would be an issue for the viewer, nor would
> it affect the viewers enjoyment of, or interpretation of, the rest of
> the painting. That is--when the window is but a minor element in
> the otherwise sweeping scope of the landscape.
IAN: My second paragraph in reply answered this objection.
You said that you found my analysis "quite flawed." I believe I
have effectively answered the counter argument you've raised.
Thanks for your feedback, and let me know if you still see flaws.