Paradox: A Visual Essay

By Joel Mann

Art is not About

the singulAr hAnd

of the Artist

Art is not About

the singulAr hAnd

of the Artist

that surpass each

...it is the ideas behind the works

work itself.”

that surpass each

...it is the ideas behind the works

work itself.”

It is rare when I don’t... ...think about what it is that connects us

all, though much more apparent in my every day

is what doesn’t, or more appropriately, what is

uniquely different about each of us. In the most

simplest of things we can find ways to argue

and clash, and these feelings are only intensified

when paired with things of more personal

importance. It might be easiest then to describe

the unifying factor in the form of the question

‘why are we here?’ (and it’s related ideas ‘what

is real?’, ‘what does it mean to exist?) etc.)

How we each come to terms with the impossibility

of answering it. But that is what we are all faced with, the

cause and not the effect. The effect, or rather, the answer

to the question, can never be the same for all of us. Our

consciousness won’t allow it. Could there be some sort of

Absolute?* I think so, but it is absurd to think that everyone will

come to the same realization at once about what it is, or even

more laughable that it will reveal itself.

It is rare when I don’t... ...think about what it is that connects us

all, though much more apparent in my every day

is what doesn’t, or more appropriately, what is

uniquely different about each of us. In the most

simplest of things we can find ways to argue

and clash, and these feelings are only intensified

when paired with things of more personal

importance. It might be easiest then to describe

the unifying factor in the form of the question

‘why are we here?’ (and it’s related ideas ‘what

is real?’, ‘what does it mean to exist?) etc.)

How we each come to terms with the impossibility

of answering it. But that is what we are all faced with, the

cause and not the effect. The effect, or rather, the answer

to the question, can never be the same for all of us. Our

consciousness won’t allow it. Could there be some sort of

Absolute?* I think so, but it is absurd to think that everyone will

come to the same realization at once about what it is, or even

more laughable that it will reveal itself.

limit: noun

A point or level beyond which something does

not or mAy not extend or pAss

limit: noun

A point or level beyond which something does

not or mAy not extend or pAss

When choosing limitations

the designer needs to be careful

When choosing limitations

the designer needs to be careful

...to not make them too—well

Every game needs rules, and every successful framework for

improvisation has limitations. These limitations can be internal to let the creative get to work, but can also manifest outward to act as rules of engagement for contributors and participants.

Limitations can be useful to help a creator or contributor begin

working in a general direction, then, use the feedback of the process to steer their decision making. This is how improv theater works. Most sketches begin, then the actors let the momentum of the narrative snowball working off of the limitation of the prompt and any rules they may have.

The utility of restraints is that they give the participants common-

footing, which allows them to get started. Motivation doesn’t disappear, it evaporates, and this seems crucial when a designer is either trying to get to work, or is working to ensure their users remain engaged. One strategy is to create a purposeful set of limitations I like to call a “pseudo-structure.” Pseudo-structures act as a framework for creative activity and improvisation. Limitations are the playground of a creative mind. They are a latticework on which to hang ideas.

limiting

...to not make them too—well

Every game needs rules, and every successful framework for

improvisation has limitations. These limitations can be internal to let the creative get to work, but can also manifest outward to act as rules of engagement for contributors and participants.

Limitations can be useful to help a creator or contributor begin

working in a general direction, then, use the feedback of the process to steer their decision making. This is how improv theater works. Most sketches begin, then the actors let the momentum of the narrative snowball working off of the limitation of the prompt and any rules they may have.

The utility of restraints is that they give the participants common-

footing, which allows them to get started. Motivation doesn’t disappear, it evaporates, and this seems crucial when a designer is either trying to get to work, or is working to ensure their users remain engaged. One strategy is to create a purposeful set of limitations I like to call a “pseudo-structure.” Pseudo-structures act as a framework for creative activity and improvisation. Limitations are the playground of a creative mind. They are a latticework on which to hang ideas.

limiting

“consciousness

inevitAbly Alters

the object”

“consciousness

inevitAbly Alters

the object”

it must look at actual consciousness...

Rather,

it must look at actual consciousness...

Rather,

as it really exists.

Absolute is the concept of an unconditional

reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday

existence. it is often used as an alternate term

for “god” or “the divine”, especially, but by no

means exclusively, by those who feel that the term

“god” lends itself too easily to anthropomorphic

presumptions. the concept of the absolute may or may

not (depending on one’s specific doctrine) possess

discrete will, intelligence, awareness or even a

personal nature. It is sometimes conceived of as the

source through which all being emanates. It contrasts

with finite things, considered individually, and

known collectively as the relative.

as it really exists.

Absolute is the concept of an unconditional

reality which transcends limited, conditional, everyday

existence. it is often used as an alternate term

for “god” or “the divine”, especially, but by no

means exclusively, by those who feel that the term

“god” lends itself too easily to anthropomorphic

presumptions. the concept of the absolute may or may

not (depending on one’s specific doctrine) possess

discrete will, intelligence, awareness or even a

personal nature. It is sometimes conceived of as the

source through which all being emanates. It contrasts

with finite things, considered individually, and

known collectively as the relative.

“Information is continually processed

and reprocessed as it interacts with

all other data you have experienced.”

“Information is continually processed

and reprocessed as it interacts with

all other data you have experienced.”

“The sequence is never-ending

and unstoppable...

“The sequence is never-ending

and unstoppable...

continues.”

and changed as it

...and is both preserved

continues.”

and changed as it

...and is both preserved

“I think one of the most odd things about learning ...

is the moment where you know enough to realize how much you don’t know.”

“I think one of the most odd things about learning ...

is the moment where you know enough to realize how much you don’t know.”

Paradoxes are greater than the sum of their parts

Paradoxes are greater than the sum of their parts

Paradoxes are greater

than the sum of their parts.

If one and one is three, that

last third is the conceptual

leap that connects them. It’s

where insight lives, and it’s

what causes my delight. It’s

why Seinfeld is, and will always

be, funny. It’s why Jennifer

Daniel is clever (and funny). It’s

why I miss the old Simpsons.

It’s about curation, choosing

wisely, and presenting an

audience with something new.

“Here, look at this thing you

didn’t notice.” “Here, consider

this thing in a way you haven’t

before.” A good paradox

broadens our scope as people.

It makes us question, but I think

it also allows us to accept.

Amusement is one of the best

parts of paradoxes, but their

application is wider and more

important. I think an increased

tolerance for paradox is a

crucial requirement for a

person to be able to cope

with the world today. Our

access to information has

created more paradoxes.

We have made pieces of

conflicting information more

accessible than any other

point in time. Unfortunately,

we’ve mistaken cynicism as

the tool we need to cope with

this conflict of information. It

seems much more healthy to

me to accept that two pieces

of contradicting information

can both some how be true.

It removes that default state

of distrust, and displace

acknowledgement insight.

How do we sort out the

paradox that even though

the our consumption lifestyle

is causing global warming,

most people are unlikely to

change their buying habits?

Or the paradox that we make

decisions that fill our lives

with more minutia, but the

more bits we’re surrounded

with, the poorer decisions

we make? Or how about the

paradox that even though

our hyper-connected world

exposes us to more conflicting

view points, we actually

become more narrow-minded

because we choose places

where others only agree?

Paradoxes are greater

than the sum of their parts.

If one and one is three, that

last third is the conceptual

leap that connects them. It’s

where insight lives, and it’s

what causes my delight. It’s

why Seinfeld is, and will always

be, funny. It’s why Jennifer

Daniel is clever (and funny). It’s

why I miss the old Simpsons.

It’s about curation, choosing

wisely, and presenting an

audience with something new.

“Here, look at this thing you

didn’t notice.” “Here, consider

this thing in a way you haven’t

before.” A good paradox

broadens our scope as people.

It makes us question, but I think

it also allows us to accept.

Amusement is one of the best

parts of paradoxes, but their

application is wider and more

important. I think an increased

tolerance for paradox is a

crucial requirement for a

person to be able to cope

with the world today. Our

access to information has

created more paradoxes.

We have made pieces of

conflicting information more

accessible than any other

point in time. Unfortunately,

we’ve mistaken cynicism as

the tool we need to cope with

this conflict of information. It

seems much more healthy to

me to accept that two pieces

of contradicting information

can both some how be true.

It removes that default state

of distrust, and displace

acknowledgement insight.

How do we sort out the

paradox that even though

the our consumption lifestyle

is causing global warming,

most people are unlikely to

change their buying habits?

Or the paradox that we make

decisions that fill our lives

with more minutia, but the

more bits we’re surrounded

with, the poorer decisions

we make? Or how about the

paradox that even though

our hyper-connected world

exposes us to more conflicting

view points, we actually

become more narrow-minded

because we choose places

where others only agree?

“The effect, or rather, the answer

to the question,

can never be the same for all of us.”

“The effect, or rather, the answer

to the question,

can never be the same for all of us.”

“We are connected

by our differences”

“We are connected

by our differences”

In some almost incomprehensible way our consciousness is something utterly

personal and completely universal at the same time. Not in the sense that each of

our mind’s are one in the same – a shared consciousness – but rather that we are

so impossibly different, and there are infinite factors that will effect each of our

thoughts uniquely, that we are unified in that. I represent this graphically with the

spiral, a never-ending cycle of both preserving and changing an concept, and

look to Hegel’s approach, referred to as the Hegelian method, to help clarify it.

In some almost incomprehensible way our consciousness is something utterly

personal and completely universal at the same time. Not in the sense that each of

our mind’s are one in the same – a shared consciousness – but rather that we are

so impossibly different, and there are infinite factors that will effect each of our

thoughts uniquely, that we are unified in that. I represent this graphically with the

spiral, a never-ending cycle of both preserving and changing an concept, and

look to Hegel’s approach, referred to as the Hegelian method, to help clarify it.

Communication Arts Annual: 2009

Typography for the People

Bibliography

“For every beginning there is an ending,

with every ending there is a new beginning”

Joel MannType 1Michael SelbyFall 2012