(c) 1996 Ian Williams Goddard
ONTOLOGY: the study of the nature and
principles of existence.
Aristotle called
ontology the "first philosophy."
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
ART