Shape

98 I What Makes It Visual?
(Is hh ii ambiguous, as well? Perhaps—but only in two ways.) What’s more, a string
with n shapes from my vocabulary (2n squares, although I have no way to resolve
them) can be divided in 4n 2 8n þ 3 different ways. I’m ready to give up. I have Goodman’s
authoritative account—
Note how far astray is the usual idea that the elements of a notation must be discrete. First, characters
of a notation, as classes, must rather be disjoint; discreteness is a relation among individuals.
Second, inscriptions of a notation need not be discrete at all. And finally, even atomic inscriptions
of different characters need be discrete relative to that notation only.
—but let’s play it safe. It makes sense to require connected shapes that don’t touch
when they combine. Not even discreteness works all the time—discrete points never
touch, but discrete lines may. How many are in the cross
It’s twice in Evans’s shape each time as two lines or four. But maybe it’s three lines in
two alternative ways, and in fact, it’s three in indefinitely many ways and likewise for
four lines or more when discrete lines are connected.
This way of defining a vocabulary of shapes and using it, so that shapes behave
like symbols when they’re combined, can be applied very broadly and is consistent
with everyday practice. Nonetheless, it has a number of obvious drawbacks that limit
its practicality in drawing and design. In particular, no connected shape can ever be
divided. There are a myriad of possibilities that go unfulfilled—not even a triangle
has three sides. Evans’s exercise is pointless—there’s nothing to say about his shape
and no reason for his rule. Making shapes into symbols doesn’t appear to be a very
good idea. It just makes them look like points—but points are there already—and
it’s unnecessary to calculate with my kind of rules. What’s more, I like the ambiguity
that’s involved. It’s sheer novelty, and there are many ways to use it. Why should I
stop seeing?