by Taliesin Thomas

Existence is realized somewhere between continuity and discontinuity, between the actual and the imagined. This paradox is integral to our human paradigm; on the one hand the elements of this life are corporeal and impartial—we can, quite literally, grasp the material nature of objective reality. On the other hand these same forces are hypothetical and subjective; all causes are relative and theoretically contingent on other conditions—there can be no independent “thing-in-itself” (das Ding-an-sich) separate from the totality of being. Nothing exists in concrete terms; everything abides in a state of continual flux. What, if anything, is actually something?

Philosophers from ancient to contemporary times point to ‘substance’ as a foundation for presence. Long ago, Parmenides considered all phenomenon as one substance, that of Nature or God, while centuries later Kant identified substances by virtue of their differentiation from a singular essence: “we yet cannot take away that property through which the object is thought as substance or as inhering in a substance.” More recently Deleuze and Guattari suggest substance is formed as matter that refers to “territorialities and degrees of territorialization and deterritorialization.” Thus throughout the ages substance functions as its own form of implied realism: actual things are ordered by and dependent on substance, a primary instance of being.

How do varying categories of substance serve as principles that create our concept of selfhood and real existence? Does substance manifest as a reliable infrastructure by which we might discern between the somatic and the supernatural? Arguably it does not—substance is mere a deception of language and a delusion of metaphysical inquiry. The improbability of ordering our world via substance is that, as furthered by Leibniz, this “mirroring” of monads into physical realities suggests: “the universe may be merely a dream.” Although we incarnate in bodily form, our perceptible world cannot be characterized as an explicit actuality in permanent objective terms.

Substance remains a versatile and enigmatic phantom of philosophy—our alleged reality is a distinctly protean construction that exists somewhere between the molar and the molecular. Within this elusive void we experience our existence qua substance. While thinkers from time immemorial have done a considerable job of analyzing this essential term, substance remains an imaginative handmaiden for the boundless abstract that philosophers reify with astute reasoning but ultimately fail to represent in definitive terms. Substance is indeterminate: the delusive search for something consistently results in nothing.

Reality is not stable, despite its convincing identity in carnal terms—proof of this illusion is illustrated in a stunning example of modern art by Salvador Dalí (1904 – 1989): “Galatea of the Spheres” (1952). This painting presents the viewer with an interpretation of substance that is both visual and textual. While the surrealist style of the portrait affords a visionary encounter with the atomic nature of substance, the underlying psychoanalytic implication of the work suggests a philosophical interpretation of our inherent vacuity. As demonstrated by the hallucinatory nature of substance revealed through this masterful work of art, progressive identification with substance as a root of metaphysical conception lacks conclusive definition. Dalí’s “Galatea of the Spheres” beautifully exhibits a philosophical perspective of substance in visual terms, and suggests that our definition of substance reveals the delusive search for nothing as something.

These days humanity appears to be living an increasingly bi-polar existence, one caught between the corporeal and immaterial spheres of influence. While contemporary culture is dominated by the sweeping impacts of globalization, the ambiguity of the spaces “in-between” propel us to reconsider the foundations of existence. The performance of modern living—in all its diverse representations of substance—allows formlessness to speak through form, where the monads of life embody the ambiguities of that very existence. Although we exist as finite matter and inevitably dissolve into some other form of matter, ultimately we cannot define ourselves through that substance. Our being-as-substance remains a mystery, and ultimately “man is reduced to a sequence of unrelated experiential fragments; he is as inexplicable to others as to himself” (Lukács).

If we agree that philosophy has no shallow end, then terms such as ‘being,’ ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ buoy our ramble into the deep metaphysical abyss. Arguably we are adrift without these lifelines of conceptual language to orient the dialogue concerning existence. These ideas, however, are used in various ways and with different meanings, depending on the thinker—their implications are reordered and deciphered by the receiving mind. Indeed, the very words that comprise the basis of philosophical analysis are often multifaceted and enigmatic. Our attempt to concretize these definitions leads to a metaphorical “house of mirrors” as it concerns interpretation and our understanding of things: everywhere we turn, we encounter a dualistic paradigm, a re-contextualization and reinterpretation of rationale. If we introduce the notion of ‘science’ as a subject distinct from philosophy into this analysis, the paradox becomes even more phantasmagorical.

Like many foundational philosophical ideas, the varying explanations of substance chaperone man’s intellect toward greater intuition. The seemingly solid nature of substance qua substance, however, does not provide a definitive understanding of our material incarnation. On the contrary: the manifold definitions of substance yield a rich exoteric language that merely masquerades the esoteric chasm of existence. Dalí’s “Galatea of the Spheres” speaks directly to this paradigm: it is only our realization of the “substance-lessness” quality of being within the void—and conversely the void within our being—that results in true autonomy for the subjective mind.

Taliesin Thomas received her BA in Fine Arts from Bennington College (’98) and completed her MA in East Asian Studies from Columbia University (’12) with a focus on Chinese art and culture and Buddhist studies. She is currently a PhD candidate in Art Theory and Philosophy with the Institute for Doctoral Studies in the Visual Arts. Thomas has worked in the field of Chinese contemporary art since 2001, first as the managing director of Ethan Cohen Fine Arts (the oldest gallery in the United States to specialize in Chinese avant-garde art) and then as a lecturer and private teacher on the subject. In 2007 she was hired as the founding director of AW Asia, a private organization that exclusively promotes the field of Chinese contemporary art.