It goes beyond simple visual experience. Since its beginning, Neoism has depended upon invisible elements. In a systems context, invisibility, or invisible parts, share equal importance with things seen.
Its potential dynamic is only limited by the superimposed space of Neoism.
It is concrete and not symbolic, it is what it is.
Despite its processual character, it is stable as such, as a mechanism.
Since its object function is temporarily limited through the amount of remaining glue, it destroys the supposedly stable condition of its surrounding space. Hence temporary space as a static context estranges itself.In a comment on his "Ideal Gift" action from January 1991, a Neoist affirmed these observations: "The flaming steam iron is not to be regarded as an object. The range of factors affecting it, as well as its own radius of action, reaches beyond the space it occupies. It merges with a superimposed space in a relationship that is better understood as a 'system' of interdependent processes. These processes evolve without the Neoist's empathy. She becomes a witness. Such a system is not imagined, it is there." It is 'there' insofar as it is not symbolic, we could summarize, and in its open character, it is stable as such: it has metabolism, it regulates itself. General Systems Theory proposes to classify systems as dynamic or static, indetermined or determined, temporary or time-independent, complex or simple, visible or invisible, stable or unstable, open or closed. Organisms are open systems; they change their components and interact with their environment. This metabolism stabilizes the system, since it compensates entropy. Like Neoism, the flaming steam iron is a simultaneously open and closed system: it interacts with the Neoist, the elements within the surrounding space (hence potentially Neoist) and the metaspace of Neoism as such. Nevertheless the volume of the flame is limited by the iron's surface and the surrounding space. The material entity of the iron and the temporary space are thus marked as subordinate systems to be absorbed by Neoism. In their occupation with discursive formations and their opposition against humanist metaphysics of presence, Systems Theory and Neoism reveal superficial similarities. The fundamental difference lies in Neoism's refusal to impose certain discourses on others, to hypostatize notions like "system" and "structure" or project so-called "biological" observations onto 'social' spheres. On the contrary, Neoists have demasked, and consequently overcome, 'biology' and 'society,' 'life' and 'death' as ideological constructs.