depiction then a picture, a diagram, a technical drawing, or something in between? At first, as a result of successive examinations of the image from top to bottom, the impression of increasing deviation from the system of order arises, as described above. Upon further examination, structures appear even as disorder increases; structures that cross over from the formal context of individual pieces through their respective positions relative to each other on the surface, to new non-rigid geometrical figures. An interpretation allows us to claim that the condition of increasing disorder allows ordered structures within the image to appear, without clearly fixing them into definite geometrical forms. This effect can be described using information theory by saying that super symbols are being formed in the region of disorder. [45] They can be described as having dynamic and contingent qualities. The upper portion of the image, however, is static. This leads to the realization that by interpreting the results of observation on a higher plane, dependent elements of order are visible within the realm of disorder. This does not occur in the region of the image with higher order. Here it is

evident that an additive lining up of squares can in turn lead only to the formation of other squares or rectangles. [46] We still have to consider the programming that actually gave rise to the image. The optical evidence for simultaneous states of order without the generation of formally divergent super symbols with a relatively gradual transition into disorder—a disorder that evokes contingent and formally divergent super symbols—points to a feature in the programming. For this reason, the role of programmed chance in the parameters would have to be taken into consideration. Following the artist's description of the process [47] , it can thus be concluded that the meaning of an image, which adds value to that which the work has as a diagram of a formula, can only be deduced if an integrated investigative model is applied, comprising both observations and investigation of the computational foundations. [48] In a logically deterministic computer program, this action then imposes a relationship between an experience in observation and knowledge about the abstraction of a problem. [49] It is therefore seen that understanding is determined exclusively from a unilateral investigation of