No mountain is not (like) a mountain.

The 無山不似山 collection is a 53 1/1 generative work on fx(hash).

Qingyuan Xingsi, Hegel and Russell

The above argument is in the form of standard thesis, antithesis and synthesis. The thesis and antithesis is straight forward. The synthesis, however is open to interpretation. In a discontent, literally or metaphorically, I attempt to meditate this synthesis deliberately or aimlessly, as if I were a monk in search of zen.

The antithesis diverging from the thesis, is actually a negation of the predicate. And the synthesis had nowhere really to go except backwards, towards the thesis, with a modification in the use of the word “just”. I feel “just” can interpreted as “only and nothing more”, or as “rightfully”, or “barely”.. At first sight this system seems complete. But it’s completeness is subject to the loaded adverb/adjective augmented to the synthesis. I believe this is called semantic complete, but not syntacal complete.

In the above a simple 2x2 of the mountain analysis is presented. Syntactically the incompleteness is due to the absences of subject. In the absences of subject, half of the syntactic or literal “logical” space is left untouched. Now since the negation of seeing mountain can be in turn interpreted as not seeing mountains or seeing no mountain. Without a need to explicitly to be complete, touching everything, I just aim towards being a little more complete. My meditation exercise then, becomes

Not seeing mountains are mountains.

and

Seeing no mountains (that) are not (like) mountains.

Like Qingyuan Xingsi, I added a word “like”, open to interpretation. But otherwise my dual synthesis is syntactically construed. The word “that” is purely for comprehension assistance. I forgot whom the following was from, but the concept are somewhat reminiscent:

Seeing is forgetting the name of the thing one sees.

But it’s also never something it’s not. Your imagination is not mine. Nor mine yours. Leading to the following dialogue, though not in conversation, happened few centuries apart.

You are what you eat or cook — Shu Shi and Yuan Mei.

The artist Su Shi (蘇軾) from the Song dynasty, known for poetry, calligraphy, painting, gastronomy, you name it. There was a particular writing of his, that I associated with in my 無山不似山 work, though not in complete agreement:

論畫以形似，見與兒童鄰。賦詩必此詩，定非知詩人。

I would translate it as:

In discussion whether a painting is similar in the accuracy of the subject matter, they seek entrance into children’s art class. And if poetry is written as exactly it reads, the poet does not really feel yet, through poetry nor themselves.

Now Su Shi is rather conservative in his aesthetic especially in those fields that are taught and examined for government positions. One can see his conversative tastes clearly in these classical arts. The only field of aesthetics where I would have felt was avant-garde, is in gustronomy. The writing of his menu and recipes were mostly record at later stage of his life, when he was exiled after political struggle. There was a liberation in his aesthetics without the burden of history of the arts. Those are stories for another day.

My undertaking in classic Chinese literature, actually came by way of studying foodie artists. Or more like from reading artists who wrote about food first then their literature. Their aesthetic in poetry or painting is not so different than literal taste of food. If Su Shi is the most renowned artist foodie, who also cooked himself, then few centuries after, the poet Yuan Mei (袁枚), is the artist who authored the ultimate guide to Chinese cooking: 隨園食單 Recipes from the Garden of Contentment. With the assistant of his house cook, lil’ Wang (小王).

In similarity, both artist were somewhat prodigies, Su Shi finished top 2 and Yuan Mei top 5 in the national exams. Unlike Su Shi, Yuan Mei never reached the very top of governing inner circle. Yuan Mei, did retired as middle management government official. Whereby doing industrially commercial work and investing with foresight, he was able to found and fund an open academy, 隨園, accepting women equally as men. The 隨園, their work was not burdened by academia norms at the time. Creating art together, while being serve great food, by lil’ Wang.

Again, these are stories for another day.

Back to Yuan Mei’s direct response to Su Shi’s comment above:

「… …」此言最妙。然須知作此畫而竟不是此畫，則尤非畫人矣。其妙處總在旁見側出，吸取題神；不是此畫，恰是此畫。[a]

What Su Shi said is of the most delicate in taste. (Like a teenager’s crush.) But it must be also noted that if one paints a subject, and it turns out to not resemble this painted subject, then it is not painted by a painter too. The taste of delicacies lies in the indirectness, (not unlikes teenagers with a crush), their indirect radianance inside captures.

Is it him or is it him not. Is it her or is it her not.

[a] I substituted poetry from the original with painting.

In this discussion, I noticed the same syntactic ambiguity in that the negation of the poet or painter. In that, in a non-typical parsing of the verb-noun, parsing it as a verb noun, painted people (畫人). Reading it as negative verb noun, 非畫人 becomes not painting people.

非畫人 — not painting people or paint I cannot.

I did not realise I had coded my mountain brush outline function to be the shape of the character 人 (1). It was pointed out to me by non Chinese speaker friend on twitter. The character is of pictogram nature in 人, in open space, seem to her like a large crowd in pilgrimage. In the impressionistic painting of houses, with picture windows borderless picture windows, is fixed in position, it is the surrounding what varies the sense of space in of the whole scene, coded. The multiple windows was an attempt to demonstrate the viewing of the exactly same and the difference others in a scene. A few editions I had decide to paint onto the frame, since the frame is only an artificial and sometimes pragmatic constraints added to art.

There are few phrase that resonate in agreement, post generative composition and post mint. In that I did not start with a specification of the art I generated. It is only after the fact, that associations arise into the latent.

山不在高[b]，有仙則靈[c]。

The above sentence translates to: it need not matter if the mountain is tall and taller, because if in fairies residence, the mountain is enchanted.

[b1]高, adjective — tall. In Chinese landscape painting (山水畫), the three grails, are 高遠, looking up afar before finally reach skyline；[b2]平遠, beyond vast horizons；[b3]深遠, depth that without an end. Depth that without an end remind me of some of Bacon’s work.

[c] I have often find versions replaced 靈 with 名 named, i.e. popular. It is definitely no coincidence that immortal (fairy) 仙, decomposes into 人 people and 山 mountain.

I like my quiet peaceful time and day. But we are in social nature in that with there is a saying:

小隱于山，中隱于市場， 大隱于朝。

Reclusion in the mountains is trivial. Reclusion in the markets is commercial. Reclusion exposed together to the power struggles is in survival.

人生

Painting is not exactly this, but yet precisely that. This code and that composition, both, all, neither, are mountains, really, are they not?

人山人海

People mountain people see/sea. I see that, no mountain is not a mountain.

人山海海

The composition of earth is of mountains and sea. We just live in it. Not seeing mountains are not mountains.

無山不似山？非畫人，不似仙。

Is, No mountain not like a mountain, as not like painting people, and never is it imortal. Maybe there is a little of zen and punk in me.

The 無山不似山 collection is a 53 1/1 generative work on fx(hash).