The use of symbols in the modern era is without precedent. We use symbols (at least in the form of pictographs) as never before. We use the small identifiers called icons everywhere. Not since the dawn of civilization and the beginning of writing in hieroglyphic form using pictographic symbols that functioned as literary descriptors (in which the function of symbol and verbal meaning were combined) have pictorial images been used in such great quantities as identifiers. I would argue that even with the dawning of written language, there were nowhere near the number of pictographs in use as the number we use today – which we would refer to as: “signs” or “icons.” But the deeper meaning of what symbol is, is largely being ignored in the modern era. We identify the symbols superficially as diagrammatic representations that stand in for a linguistic meaning but for most they have no deeper meaning than that. This kind of banal representative function is, I believe, something about which we should be concerned. This inability to perceive any deeper nuance, any hidden, secondary, or deeper meaning may portend a lessened ability to perceive inherent subtlety but that is a topic for another time. Needless to say,  in an odd reversal of precedent, we tend to use pictographs as never before at least insofar as modern civilization is concerned but as I intimated the identification is superficial and tautological. In the end this will have the effect of crippling both language and symbology. My own poem “Data” is a commentary on this shortcoming. Symbolism is the hidden language of the artist. I believe that everyone has their own personal symbolism within the wider context. This is why certain symbols have a more powerful meaning for one person than another. Certain objects or types of objects, designs, etc. are used by certain artists. I believe each mature artist has discovered their own hidden language which they display in images – even though the particular artist may not understand it – it is part of them. It is part of them in the same way that a particular type of mollusk creates a certain type of pattern on it’s shell. Although the mollusk does not “understand the pattern it is indigenous to it – so it is with artists. This “secret language” has been a never ending source of fascination for me. Much art uses symbol covertly and subtly. Surrealists, on the other hand used overt and often lavish symbolism but that has seemingly stultified along certain lines; producing images and forms that are largely predictable and over-familiar. My point is that our over use of iconography may be threatening to destroy or rather deadening us to the recognition of the deeper meaning of symbolism. A symbol – a real symbol has several meanings to convey all at once. The verbal equivalent is allegory in which language is nuanced and imbued with hidden meanings. In the same way that words in a pulp novel lack the levels of nuance present in Shakespeare, contemporary icons lack the depth of traditional symbols.

     All this to say that symbol is of critical importance in art and design. In order to stand apart from our own period, in order to historically reposition ourselves so we can temporarily escape from our temporal and cultural box we must also be acutely aware of symbolism. Identification and awareness of the symbolism from a particular period will supply us with a hidden road map giving us insights into a period or era that cannot be gained by any other means. This is the critical third step which we must make in re-approachment. It is both the end of our analysis and the beginning of our synthesis. Symbol identifies a milieu, a culture, a location, an ethnology, an individual in so many ways it cannot be dismissed lightly. When looking for and at symbols we must learn how to “look” for them. Each individual symbol often carries a chain of attached meanings and accompanying symbols. A stop sign for instance contains within its symbolism, a shape: octagonal, color: deep red, letters: block style in white, positioned: on a pole. The sign has associations as well: cars, roadway, danger, actions, etc. We can extract some of the accompanying elements and insert them into an unfamiliar context. If we do this it is apt to create a feeling of angst in the viewer; especially if we are successful. But there are subtle symbols that are harder to identify and that becomes a harder task. For instance, why are certain symbols are seen as having magical properties and therefore hidden dangers are attached to them as well. Mushrooms and toadstools (aside from the obvious possibility that some are good to eat, some are poisonous, and some produce hallucinations) a definitely in this category as are the carnival but there is nothing inherent in their nature which causes this identification it is the fact that they spring up overnight and then disappear just as quickly unbidden and seemingly out of nowhere – virtually anything that does this will be seen as having “magical” characteristics. I could give other examples ad nauseam but there has been enough written on the subject already at least for the purpose of example.

     There is, however, a further use for symbolism beyond simply employing it as a cultural identifier. We can extract and manipulate symbolic clues in our work but beyond that symbol can be employed in Concrecentist fashion. We commence doing this when we begin to evolve forms from symbolic diagrams.

     The worst learning curve on any software program to date was surely that of the old 3D Studio program. A friend of mine who taught CAD with all of its complexity and refinements continued to refer to 3D Studio as “the program with the learning curve from hell.” The reason that it was so difficult is that most of the forms produced in it, started out as a two dimensional outline, which would later be “lofted” or raised upwards to whatever extent the operator desired, in order to add a third dimension. The problem was every beginning student decided that all they had to do was draw the outline of a circle and when they entered the second module – “the lofter” they could create a sphere. No one understood at first that while a circle could be turned into a cylinder of any height but it could never be used to create a sphere. This was a never ending source of frustration for program beginners. I’m even more aware of the frustration that was experienced and the difficulty of “seeing” in three dimensions, because I taught the program for several years at a technical college. However, I must give credit where credit is due. In the end, the program gave an invaluable equivalency in real world design. Once a person sees how this process works and can do it in their head, it becomes indispensable for designing or creating forms from symbols. Many people, I think never went on to do it in their heads or moved beyond their computer screens but those who did know exactly what I mean when I say: “what they learned was invaluable.” When I began doing functional art, I never used the computer in my work again – although it makes a great word processor!  Unfortunately, as the programs became more sophisticated this early acquired skill level was laundered out of them.

     As I said above, the use of symbol has another more complex possibility that should be seriously considered here. It may be used in such a way that it may be interwoven into or actually used as a three dimensional form. More importantly, the diagram may be manipulated in several ways so that a three dimensional form is produced from the symbol. When a three dimensional form is produced from a symbolic diagram in this way, the object now essentially re-presents the symbol in an unexpected way and becomes in and of itself a mysterious manifestation of the symbol. This Is bound to happen because the symbol is being employed out of its recognizable or expected context (as described above). This is an area that needs far more explanation than I can give it here and (it needs diagrams which need to be scanned and will be forthcoming). The conversion of symbols to full three dimensional forms can be one of the greatest sources for renewable designs available and recognizing this should be an invaluable asset. This suggestion then, is to say that we can take a rudimentary symbol (an outline as it were) and create a form from it, in the end producing something so different that it becomes a truly valuable hybrid. Thus we are able to quickly move to another possibility from that of concocting hybrids from dissimilar designs to creating unique three dimensional pieces from the concrescence of symbol and dimension.