Where does art stop and the person begin? Is the frame of the canvas the boundary? Is the wall, the room, the building the boundary? Is the audience the definitive edge and boundary condition between the artefact and the meaning or interpretation? Then again: is the image on the device on the social media platform of the person in the building that houses art the boundary where the logical pattern and cognitive grammar of art is identifiable, where it effectively stops? There is also the image in my mind, your mind – has the art stopped and been containerised, identified and commodified at that point of psychological inflection where the meanings encoded unpack themselves within the sparkling electrical maelstrom of your sentient self-awareness? There is no boundary. We make these boundaries to make sense of the narrative stream of our experience and this sllows a modicum of control and value to be asserted. It is a constitutively false dichotomy that in seeking (and finding this self-inflected) difference, seeks that reflexive self-definition and control that appears possible in that act but this, too, despite being the source of perhaps all symbolic value, is as fictional as is that perceived depth in the representational logic of art itself.
It is interesting how the craft of cultivating an optimal representational configuration of artefacts within a designated “art gallery” inadvertently assumes all the characteristics of the recombinatory conceptual recursion that art itself (perhaps self-consciously) instantiates. There is creativity in the procedural development of narrative information flows (curatorship) and here, already, we see an intimation of a self-propagating logic of information encryption which flows from the material nodes of the objects and out through communication(s) channels to validate and self-replicate the logic and cognitive grammar of an evolving consensus meaning and reality undergoing relentless metamorphosis.