The taxonomy is not universally valid, although the process of analysis could be used on subjects other than me and the output could be compared. This would be the work of a scientist.
From an artist’s perspective, other than feared, the taxonomy did not produce any formal criteria for the organisation of works of art. Figurative and abstract works, for example, seem to be evenly distributed, and so are colour and black-and-white images.
This does not, however, answer the question whether there are non-formal relationships (relationships of quality).
Second, the constructive rules have become ‘embodied’ in the imagination; that is, although not actually possible, can an imagined shape be drawn for any image that is perceived? The imagined shape corresponds to a state of the brain that allows each image to be thought of as a shape.
Conversely, any given shape can be seen as a representation of another yet unseen image – the speculation (in the senses) of what an unseen image might have looked like when one is confronted with a given shape is highly interesting.
Overall, the project tells of the complexity of the brain, which finds its correlate in the (visual) complexity of the shapes: we get the sense that, were we able to comprehend how a shape visually works, we might get a template of how to think about the function of the brain – a visual rather than simplifying container for complex structures.
→ go back to Proto-Objects main page