Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
no single point of view. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche named this
'perspectivism': “In so far as the word 'knowledge' has any meaning, the world
is knowable; but it is interpretable otherwise, it has no meaning behind it, but
countless meanings—Perspectivism” (Nietzche 1906 , § 481)
Does the object that design marks out have an outline? Traditional metaphysics
has supposed that objects or entities have an identity. Therefore, objects do indeed
have an outline that separates themselves from other like objects. We can consider
this view as metaphysics of individuality and simple directness. The word meta-
physics means in this case a theory in general that classifies and institutes a
hierarchy of values; individuality and simple directness are prior to anything, and
totality or complexity and indirectness are secondary.
If we suppose this metaphysics, only one design would seem to outline the 'real'
world, with scientific empiricism or technical utility used to justify the design.
However, this is one of many perspectives. Design as art hearkens back to an
alternative perception of the world, and objects in that world are a priori. Thus,
Impressionism destroyed “a prosaic conception of the line”.
In the history of painting, indeed:
There has been, for example, a prosaic conception of the line as a positive attribute and
property of the object in itself. Thus, it is the outer contour of the apple or the border
between the plowed field and the meadow, considered as present the world, such that,
guided by points taken from the real world, the pencil or brush would only have to pass over
them. (Merleau-Ponty 1961 , p. 72)
However, modern art or painting has come to deny this edict. Rather, there
should be no visible lines. Lines are “always between or behind whatever we fix our
eyes upon; they are indicated, implicated, and even very imperiously demanded by
things, but they themselves are not things.” The lines imitate no longer the visible.
They render visible. They are “the blueprint of a genesis of things” (Merleau-Ponty
1961 , p. 73). Thus, merely dessin has also spiritual activity (i.e., we cannot think
about design without spirituality). Is there truth to this claim?
We can argue otherwise: when an object outlined by marks or lines emerges, the
marks or lines that delineate the object disappear and we can see only their traces.
Occasionally, we cannot even see the traces. The limit or the border that forms the
essence of the marks or the lines is not an entity but the difference itself. That is, the
marks or the lines, which render something visible, cannot be seen as themselves.
The condition of visibility itself includes invisibility. Following Plato, traditional
metaphysics has tried to interpret spirituality based on an optical model. Plato's
“δε α, idea” is originally derived from the Greek verb 'idein (see)' and considers the
meaning of a form that is seen; to understand is to see. Therefore, to understand
spirit requires visualization. If visibility includes invisibility, might spirituality
include in itself the impossibility of spirituality?
Search WWH ::




Custom Search