functions and immanent objects – or perceptions of – in art?
* The difference between functions and operations seems that operations contain multiple functions. The operation of a steady material in the bike pedal design/implementation is to allow various functions to occur. If the material was ice or paper, then it could be argued the bike’s pedal design operates dysfuntionaly. Or that the operation functions in a way different to the common idea of cycling. The operation offers var functions and their dysfunctionalities to be.
* The material – eg metal – in the bike’s pedal area for example, is a manifestation of certain operational abstract requirements. The manifestation could have been bamboo, fibreglass, a combination of materials, or some other material. While each material would offer a different character and perhaps even meanings range for the bike – eg recycled materials, sustainable materials, etc. – the fact that a given bike is made by, for example: materials with embedded scent, is not intrinsic – not immanent – to the object of that specific bike even if it was the only one in the universe. The scented material could be used for other objects, and is Not the operational requirement for the Object/Bike – but a manifestation of that abstract.
* Traditionally, in “West” oriented art linked practices, the Value of objects comes is perceived via the lenses of immanent intrinsic links between the abstract and the object. Hence Duchamp’s bicycle wheel can be re-done by the artist and retain its cultural value – based on the fact that the very language of Duchamp’s work has the element of the artist own gestures and that the object has to do with being in the realms of contextual meanings rather than moving a person from a to b.
Similarly, notes of a designer, a politician, or other producer that might have done stuff which was not linked to art – because they (notes/possessed-objects/etc) become unique through the friction with the person of cultural significance – they gain Values far beyond their otherwise daily perception.
* The question in my mind is that of operational abstract, the abstract imagination practices with which which various manifestations functions and objects are linked for life.
In a way the IF A ^ ? is there because I think that this is the only way to share imagination as an imagination.
However, is it not a manifestation of an imagination?
I’d say more of a translation because of the material and form. However, is this not very traditional in the way art linked stuff is?
Might be, but am also hoping that if a person considers the IF A ^ ? to be a MIS-Translation – then some other translation ways can be made.
* Let me try to repudiate the IF A ^ ?
Suppose I said the my imagination is this batch of Olive Oil? Suppose it was this room full of defreezing spinach soaked with olive oil? Suppose it was a plastic bag? Suppose it was a line: I imagine a flowered whale? Suppose it was I imagine x + b = Z? Suppose it was imagine agct string?
All these questions, do they manifest an imagination, translate an imagination, or are linked to an imagination – in their being.
* 2 is all the 2 in the universe. 2 translates a one of A and a one of Z. Loosing 3 of a previous 5 apples, etc. The materiality of 2 is not of apples or any other object so it can Be all the 2s in the universe, right? Sure this materiality has unique features that makes 2 Be very different to A or indeed a 3. However, it lasts because we haven’t a better way to do a universal 2. We tried with || for example – but that was too complicated when dealing with complicated stuff.
In this way am not entirely convinced that IF A ^ ? are the Optimum way to do imagination as imagination sharing. However, am sure that both in form and materiality the wave is more innately linked to imagination than A – B = Z or an aeroplane made of coffee soaked books..