The Greek word for, essentially, “thing” is Kosmos ie everything about it- I mention, because one tries to get beyond the identification to image in art. In seeing how one’s art is a commentary on the art experience from within arts own language of excellence( “arete” )the idea of language seems to impute to its own being the concept of universal. Yet universalism is flawed, according to Mieka Bal of “Quoting Carravaggio- a Preposterous History ( ie compounding pre- and Post to get at the “Janus” theory of linking past with what is coming to be the future). T he flaw is as she identifies – that it forbids dialectic and assumes calm reason and a flow of events brings all things to pass according to a single meaning within an objective reality.
In art, the application of words to image is problematic because the words like to source to speaking of an “image”, the act of speaking in a sense creates this ‘Phenomenon. ( because what is spoken becomes” imaged” by the text)” Yet the image is generated by the art and if I speak of the Mona Lisa while another speaks of the image of the Mona Lisa are we talking about the same thing? On the other hand Bal calmly points out that it is pretty standard academacism to complain as per a quote she provides in Q.C. the essence of which is that writers do not adequately acknowledge that philosophy they refer to are struggled posings of questions rather than smooth fashioning of concept tools . The author she quotes, Ronen, has a follow up which I will actually directly quote here: “Possible worlds are based on the concept of ramification determining the range of possibilities that emerge from an actual state of affairs,fictional worlds are based on a logic of parallelism that guarantees their autonomy in relation to the actual world.Possible worlds despite being distinguishable worlds do not share this autonomy.” The quote seems pretty close to a paraphrase that Heidegger makes of Kant in the former writers Parmenides:” the conditions of the possibility of experience are simultaneously the conditions of the possibility of the objects of experience.”
The condition of a quote of course is that it becomes a fragment, and Heidegger in fact points in some of his most interesting writing to “fragments” of Greek philosophy that come down to us in particular he notes the very first Western utterance recorded – Anaxamander was ” Up along the way they penalty to one another for their transgressions along the lines of usage’ It is “along the lines of usage that kind of perks my ears up: that seems to give a clue to how to speak of the underlying reality that is hinted at in the writings about “conditions”.
Accordingly skeptical as one may be about the poor universalist I still think “structuralism” deserves a second look. According to our first view on determinism and so forth lacking insight as it becomes universalism the follow up that structuralism is an idea of putting things into ones own words therefore amounting to mere manipulation has its credible moment per Bals thesis. But I think the beauty of art is that the mode of mood only borrows language while always being at a point of entry. The artist to artist identification for example is very mysterious, the art as philosophy idea does in fact do what philosophy does best- ask “what is thinking”. Actually that is at a remove- asks ” what is philosophy.. ie love of …. the quote I mentioned uses the word simultaneously and this also catches my eye just as it took me by the ear: the simultaneity of perception and its object are such that we belong to the object as much as it to us. Yet the object is not object precisely because there is no language to say thay it is, being simultaneus to perception and its granting the moment is always outside of what can be put into language.
Take Carravagio for example- his realism is outside reality- he actually creates a very abstract system and sticks with it, primarily he then demonstrates a technique and otherwise is structuring relationships. The series of drawings I keep providing here are in response to “The Burial of St Lucy”, a monochrome painting in which two diggers seem to be drawing in the dirt, one face up one face down and the draperies of face down provide an abstract diagram or siglia of the painting itself like a letter one draws on a neighbors back. For my part I have created a framed zone that relates to drawings photographed out of my hand of raized foundations which I then draw over on the computer. Outside the frame stripes “bury ” photo and instead I only draw. The photo is now the software, a am modifying it by turning it into me, before I interjected the imagery of drawing to interrupt the photo process and confound it int a state of being a drawing. But now I can bury the hatchet.
However if nominalism unwraps narrative levels do they still nevertheless have a reality if we look again? ie can one establish an abstract layering of meanings… from within the arrival of the art experience that if non a language is still somehow a self in transit? It s not that hypothetical- one simply does…but how or better yet why? Basically it is a rythm thing like musicians who see colors or people who can recite PI by seeing waves of color, but at the remove of not at all being a knack, what it is is the recognition of the ability to learn…