Modularity
“These elements are assembled into larger-scale objects but continue to maintain their separate identities. These objects themselves can combined into even larger objects-again, without losing their independence”

Looking through all of the principles, the second rule of Modularity caught my interest. If objects are defined as independents then at what point could an object be defined as an object? When it comes to paints is every instance of a type of paint considered an object, or is every color a different object instead? I’ve always known paints as codependent partners. With watercolors you mix and blend to get the desired effect, you could even combine to create a layered effect that gives off the illusion of a whole new color. Are there some art pieces out there that intend to rid of individuality in its objects? Does the term for object only relate to digital mediums where everything can be easily defined as a separate item because of a computer program?

The notion that there are rules to the medium with the freedom to choose what the mediums are makes me wonder how a concept so laissez faire contains enough commonality that there are identifiable patterns to establish a rule set. To extract understanding out of an experience there are a few takeaways. This particular rule seems to impart the idea about finding harmony with the unique. When there could be so many possible proud pieces, competing for the viewer’s attention isn’t the general rule of thumb for traditional design. The choice of how to represent their media is up to the artist but how the media are respected is for the creator to keep in mind as well.