ME | the Nonmetaphorical Image

It is thought, as some sort of truism, that the visual arts, in contrast to discursive media like literature and philosophy (and according to some platonists, only the latter), cannot represent the abstract directly (this of course presupposes a theoretical dualism between the sensible and the metaphysical abstract, which transcends objectivity, a view that can be disputed, but let’s accept it for the time being). The only way for an artwork to show the abstract is indirectly through a metaphor; a glimpse into it is unveiled by something absolutely other, which constitutes the relation of some kind of semblance or analogy between the sensual and the abstract, the latter being the actual cause of the first; the image is so deeply embedded in the concrete and objective realm, we say, that it can in fact only be metaphor, or not referential at all. Perhaps only to itself (e.q. the natural objects it represents). So the nonmetaphorical artwork can only be an illustration of itself. There is of course just one other possibility; that it does in fact show the abstract directly, unmediated by metaphor; but this seems a contradiction in terms, and therefore impossible. It seems essential for the abstract, that it cannot be accessed without mediation or 'intervention' by sensible mechanism, thereby transforming its being, except maybe through language (understood only, in its empirical emition) . Although indeed seemly a contradiction in terms, this is my intention of showing; for self-referential images are dull and purposeless, and most metaphorical art is shallow and superficial, the metaphorical intention being too obvious; so although for example a sensible cube-representation can never be strictly abstract, for it is always this cube, here and now, it is still possible to strip the image of it’s being a metaphorical illustration of some-thing that it itself is not; we must be carefull not to retreat to cheasy mathematical metaphor when we intend to present the abstract directly (although this makes sense, the abstract can't be reduced to mathematical forms, if it wasn't just for the aesthetic infelicity of this position). Maybe for this to be possible, the dualism mentioned above must be dissolved, and some synthesis of the sensible and the abstract must be established, as was one of the prominent items for phenomenologists; for how can the abstract show itself unmediated even in common thought, when the relation between the sensible particular and the abstract is as mysterious as ever, and still the missing link, the holy grale of philosophy? The Nonmetaphorical Artwork arises out of this reduction, taking place between object-representational images (a Rembrandt) and metaphorical images, although maybe only in a slightly metaphorical way ;)

The being-metaphorical of a work of art constitutes some sort of consolidating reassurance, which alienates the work from its original alienation by revealing it's raison d' etre, as something external to itself, or only partial internal to its 'surface'; which the nonmetaphorical work leaves completely intact; it refers neither to itself (depicting the objects it represents) as its conditional ground nor to some condition external to it (in the case of the metaphor, this being the abstract/concept). It creates the uncomfortable feeling when one looks at an arrow that doesn’t point towards anything, thereby negating it’s own intrinsic 'intention' and 'legitimacy of existence'; so we whisper to ourselves, in constant repetition: “why is it here?”.

But now a problem arises; for there seems to be no intrinsic property of the work which necessitates a determination of it’s effect in the viewer, as being especially not-metaphorical; in other words, the viewer always has the freedom and spontaneity of inflicting on the work some kind of metaphorical relation with an abstract, thereby destroying the absence of the principle of sufficient reason (the absence of course being now his own p.o.s.r., which seems unavoidable) and so this shows the absolute vulnerability of the work, which is constituted by this absence, and can always be reversed by an intentional act of the viewer.

note: of course there exists a discipline called 'abstract art' especially in painting, but this only means that it is not representational in terms of 'natural' objects at all; but the abstract mentioned above is referring to it in the way a concept is abstract; in the way (linguistic) meaning transcends sensible reality, just like when Wittgenstein suggests, that logic is the actual condition of sense, but cannot be depicted within its own internal structure, therefore can only be shown, and is the mystical 'root' of the totality of the 'sayable', preceding it, the sayable being (in the tratatus) a logical (representational) relation between facts and propositions/sentences.