The Post Structuralist French philosopher Derrida, wrote that we wrongly favour speach over writing because there is a transparency of meaning when we speak, ideas supposedly flow directly from the mind to mouth, they exist in the present and the words can be changed or modified in order to more precisely convey the intended meaning. Writing, on the other hand, exists in the absence of the writer, it is not natural, but has to be considered  and once written the possibility of misinterpretation is always a possibility.

Art works in the same way it exists in the absence of its subject and it's maker. Once away from the studio the work is set adrift, the artist's intended meaning serves as only one of many.

But, like words, works of art are slippery fish. It is not a matter of the spoken word over the written word, it is the possibility within each word, it's meaning, it's relationship to other words within a wriiten structure, to words of a similar meaning, to words of a similar structure, to it's historical present, Derrida describes words trembling with portent.

By looking at legal documents and contracts it shows how words have to be tied down to precise meaning and how difficult and obscure this language becomes, convoluted and repetitive  out of  the need to pin down meaning.

How does this relate to painting and art in general? If we look at art as a form of communication, that it is more than something which catches and amuses the eye then every mark exists within a structure of marks which conform to a set of rules applied by the artist. this could be described as akin to spelling and grammar. These marks when viewed together are only considered art if the viewer can make some kind of sense of them. Therefore there must exist some pre agreed structure which is the basis for art, like that of a living language.

Like a legal document the diagram/plan or a colour chart is an equivalent. as they attempt to pin down structure or colour to narrow definition. this is done by severely limiting the amount of information. The more information given the more possibilities for  misinterpretation. Some artists try to control this by applying incredible detail but this only seems to heighten the sense of illusion and absence. Others try to trick the eye with effects by lulling the intellect with optics or flickering beauty but after some moments the veiwer tires of the synthetic and wants that which it represents. With art there is a sense that the work drifts between image and object in the eye of the viewer, it can never fully represent reality and yet cannot exist without reference to it.

But it would be wrong to describe art as the illusion of reality. By it's very nature an illusion is designed to trick the eye, to fool the viewer into believing they are experiencing reality. A painting is a representation which leaves space for the viewer to translate and indulge their imagination and intelligence. The pleasure of a work is enhanced by the knowledge that it is an object and not an attempt to mimic experience.