Expressing some love one image at a time has created a situation where even when trying to factually depict actual objects. Without the real object to touch even that seems to be insufficient to convince its actuality. Even when all that can be submitted for review is photo, image, illustration, tiff or gif based. And then is perceived to be only an idea. I have many ideas yet to be formed.
Some imagery on my front page is a from what is a precursor to production via 3d print-ing. which had been imported into a photo editing program and was not edited. In conjunction with that which is the actual.
I am aware how the visual domain is indeed trapped within the structure of language. But what has been more or a surprise is how what something actual is, fails into insignificance because it is not a thing! That is not the same as language as what it is, is what it has been described or observed, but it has no history prior to that what has been presented.
If by some form of adaption like a hoop is added, does that simple action trump what was before the hoop? And does the hoop have a specific role that then determines what it can be associated with?
We stand on the shoulders of giants, what would have been the case if those giants took every thing with them? Leaving only a stick in the ground would the stick then be only used in the ground and have no other role?
This is my stick, but can you see the wick? (above the a of tessellated) Does the wick in the form of an unknown geometric form yet regular candle determine the other forms? Which would all burn or melt if the heat was sufficient with or without a flame!