Flat design as visualization of flat ontologies

Introduction

One of the most interesting for the study of modern cultural phenomena is design. Design is a semiotic system, a metalanguage that is built over the real and virtual environment, and at the same time, constructs it. Practically, today design is becoming a universal language. Exploring design, one can see the essence of those processes and cultural transformations that determine the life of society.

Design does not very often come into the focus of philosophical research, however, there is an actual trend in modern philosophy, which finds its confirmation and practical expression in modern design. This philosophical trend is the so-called "flat ontologies".

The paradox is that the proponents of the philosophy of flat ontologies do not explore modern flat design, which is an obvious illustration of their theory. Conversely, modern designers working in this style (and these are almost all graphic and media designers) do not bring the philosophical basis of flat ontologies under their products. Meanwhile, it is the explication of this parallelism that makes the philosophy of flat ontologies complete, and at the same time shows a serious problem of modern design, the solution of which can be found only through a philosophical consideration of the phenomenon of design.

Therefore, the object of this study is design as a semiotic embodiment of the modern worldview, the quintessence of which are flat ontologies.

The subject of the study is parallelism in the philosophy of flat ontologies and modern flat design.

The purpose of this study is to explicate the philosophical problem of modern design, which is a consequence of the unconscious expression by designers of the philosophy of flat ontologies.

The theoretical basis of the research is the philosophy of flat ontologies as a new direction in ontology, which is promising for modern visual research.

At the same time, it should be noted that the philosophy of flat ontologies is transhumanistic and clearly hostile to man. Flat ontologies reflect the current state of society, but this is precisely a problematic state. The task of philosophy is to lead humanity out of the impasse of flat ontologies.

However, it is in the field of design that the philosophy of flat ontologies has found its practical embodiment. Related to this are the problems of modern design: it is becoming less and less adapted to humans, less and less ergonomic. The trends of transhumanism in design are obvious, and flat ontologies are the theoretical basis for these transformations. Or vice versa, both the philosophical concept and the design simply illustrate the processes taking place in society. In any case, this parallelism needs philosophical reflection and explication.

Theoretical basis of the research: the philosophy of flat ontologies

Currently, the philosophical approach of the so-called "flat ontologies" is being developed. Proponents of this approach have not studied design specifically, just as designers, using the term flat, do not correlate style with the direction in philosophy. Rather, a parallel process is taking place in philosophy and design, reflecting the fundamental attitudes of modern society. Flat design visualizes the concept of flat ontologies.

The tendency to build a new type of ontologies is noted by A. S. Vertushinsky ^[1], pointing to a number of authors who have this approach: M. DeLanda, G. Harman, Latour and his followers D. Lo and A. Mol, as well as modern thinkers – Jan Bogost, L. Bryant and T. Morton. In the article "On the way to symmetry: how ontology became flat" A. S. Vertushinsky explains that the new flat ontologies are the fourth ontological schematism opposed to the three classical ontological schematisms. Classical ontologies imply vertical and fundamental separation of objects: some objects are endowed with a great ontological status, not all equally possess the quality of being. The fourth ontological schematism implies an equal ontological status for all objects: in the approach of flat ontologies, a person, a stone, a human organ are equivalent in terms of being. Flat ontologies are fundamentally horizontal. A. S. Vertushinsky emphasizes that the vertical, the principle of hierarchy, is the enemy of flat ontology. Within the framework of flat ontologies, a person does not have a privileged ontological status, and moreover, the existence of a superobject and a transcendent reality is denied. "Being is non-hierarchical, it is completely neutral to everything that exists" ^[1].

Here it is interesting to emphasize parallels that were hardly in the focus of attention of the supporters of flat ontologies. Firstly, flat ontologies confirm the terminology of A. G. Dugin, who conditionally divides philosophy into "vertically oriented" and "horizontally oriented" ^[2]. Vertically oriented philosophy, the so–called "Logos of Apollo", is an idealistic line of ontology going from Plato to Christian philosophy (John of Damascus, Dionysius the Areopagite, etc.). Horizontally oriented philosophy, the "Logos of Cybele" is a materialistic line in philosophy, from Cynics to Marx and modern positivist philosophy, the result of which were "flat ontologies". Moreover, in the system of A. G. Dugin, horizontally oriented philosophy has negative connotations, and among the supporters of flat ontologies, respectively, the horizontal approach is positively colored.

Secondly, it is impossible not to notice that the fourth ontological schematism arises in the paradigm when the main sign form is a simulacrum of the fourth order. A fourth–order simulacrum is a type of sign in which not only there is no signified, but the signifier is reduced to zero. This is the modern design of the virtual environment: the style of flat design reduces any figurativeness and decorativeness to nothing. Modern design is flat not only because it refuses chiaroscuro, for example, but, to a greater extent, because it refuses the content, the idea, the inner fullness.

A. S. Vertushinsky proves that if reality is digital, then the flat ontology describes its structure as adequately as possible ^[3]. Even if we do not live in a computer simulation, then, indeed, the virtual environment formed by modern flat design is described precisely by flat ontologies. And it's not about the coincidence of terms. The modern visual environment is an environment where there is no hierarchy, where all objects are given the same status. A. S. Vertushinsky argues that there is no super–object for the digital environment that encompasses everything ^[3]. And this is true, but it is even more true that there is simply no such object for philosophers of a horizontally oriented paradigm, to which supporters of flat ontologies belong. The very type of thinking that does not allow hierarchy has formed both the philosophy of flat ontologies and modern flat design.

T. Morton argues that object-oriented ontology (flat ontology) will help humanity get rid of anthropocentrism ^{[4, p. 42]}. Moreover, to get rid of it, not by rising to theocentrism, but by realizing that a person is not more important than a digital code or a stone. The struggle against anthropocentrism in the philosophy of flat ontologies has positive connotations; undermining faith in the anthropocentric idea ^{[4, p. 71]} is associated with ecological consciousness, within which a person must realize that he is one of the many species of creatures inhabiting the earth. Modern ecological philosophers, in particular T. Morton, do not give an answer to the question why to fight with anthropocentric consciousness, and whether such a struggle will help the survival of mankind.

V. V. Ryzhenkova (Putintseva-Ardanskaya) considers flat ontologies as the most adequate approach for the philosophical study of digital media and contemporary art related to media and the work of neural networks ^[5]. V. V. Ryzhenkova notes that there has been a digital revolution in visual research associated with the transition from analog media to digital. Digital media, according to V. V. Ryzhenkova, are described by flat ontologies: neural networks, for example, become full-fledged actors of communication, often digital codes communicate with each other, excluding a person from communication.

Thus, the processes that we empirically explicated, considering the practice of modern design, have a justification in the philosophy of flat ontologies. Flat design is a visualization of flat ontologies. The digital environment formed by modern flat design is not human-oriented.

Practical basis of the study: flat design

We have repeatedly addressed the phenomenon of flat design in research ^{[6, 7]}. Flat design is the most common style in modern design, primarily graphic. The style of flat design has existed since 2010, that is, for more than thirteen years. A generation of designers and users has grown up who do not represent any other graphic design.

The main features of flat design are: simplified primitive schematic shapes, muted dull colors, minimalism, geometricism. But the main feature of flat design, which is not reflected by designers, is the lack of content, ideas, cultural references. It is the absence of games with meaning in modern design that gives reason to believe that the postmodern era is over, and a new era in culture is coming, which some researchers call metamodernism ^[8].

The corpus of the research material in this case can be the entire modern visual information environment. Today, most of the content is done in the style of flat design. Moreover, this style continues to develop towards minimalism: if seven years ago the most weakened colors were used in the design, then modern design tries to get rid of color altogether if possible. If the images of people in flat design were originally schematized, today image designers either avoid or distort human anatomy: schematism borders on the distortion of the human image towards depersonality and distortion of physicality to ugliness.

A more accurate description of the flat design is given by the method of semiotic analysis. If we consider flat design as a system of signs, it is revealed that flat design uses simulacra signs for its messages, and with a tendency to use simulacra of the fourth order.

A simulacrum is a sign that does not have a referent in reality, that is, it does not have a signified. The whole flat design is based on such signs: the designers' messages do not refer to anything.

Initially, design emerged as a fundamentally transitive phenomenon: design is functional. Graphic design had two main functions – identification and navigation. That is, graphic design should highlight an object from the environment and help the user navigate in the environment. The motivation of design signs was based on this: the signifier was motivated by the function, the design helped the organization to stand out, and the user to navigate the environment.

In a flat design, both of these functions stopped working. All the content has become almost the same, simplified, dim, geometrized.

Therefore, the identification function has been reduced to a simulacrum: design no longer highlights, on the contrary, design levels the object, hides it. For example, in the design of a virtual environment twenty years ago, it was customary to highlight hyperlinks vividly – with the form of a button or an underscore. In modern design, hyperlinks are not only not highlighted, but even hidden – the user often has to guess which element is a hyperlink and where to click to go to another page.

The navigation function in modern design has also been reduced to a simulacrum: today the virtual environment does not help the user, but often confuses or confuses. At the same time, designers confuse the user not with an abundance of details and ornaments, as it was twenty years ago, but with emptiness, minimalism, and uniformity of the environment.

Modern designers justify minimalism by the fact that today the recipient is overloaded with information and needs laconism of design environment messages. But the truth is that laconism today turns into unreadability, since it does not focus on the human senses.

Human perception obeys certain laws. These laws have always been studied by artists and designers and used in their work. It is no coincidence that design education implies studying the basics of composition in the first year. It is believed that designers should know the laws of visual perception, the layout of objects, highlighting the main thing, color harmonization. Design was originally a process of "visual ordering of the world and combating visual chaos" ^{[9, p. 16]}.

But modern flat design is not focused on human perception: all contrasts in it are weakened, there is no main and secondary, designers no longer observe the laws of composition. Modern designers create an environment that is less and less anthropocentric, less and less adapted to humans.

At the same time, the images of people that modern design produces are less and less human, do not contain individual characteristics, and do not even correlate with human anatomy.

This can be considered a trend of transhumanism in design and a departure from anthropocentrism. And this coincides with what the philosophy of flat ontologies declares.

Results and discussion:

The use of simulacra by modern designers is not reflected, however, it naturally follows from the features of the modern paradigm.

Three types of signs of classical semiotics are expressive signs, that is, their function is to express a certain content. And depending on how exactly the sign expresses the content, the signs are divided into iconic, index signs and symbol signs.

The simulacrum sign differs in that it has no signified, does not refer to any referent from reality. The abundance of simulacrum signs has become a defining feature of the modern paradigm.

Expressiveness is necessary for the visual environment, which is formed in a hierarchical paradigm, that is, in the paradigm of traditional ontology. Traditional ontology proceeds from the position that there is a super-object with the maximum ontological status, that is, God. The existence of God determines the high ontological status of man. In traditional ontology, it is obvious that the degree of human existence is an order of magnitude higher than the existence of, for example, a stone or a neural network.

The ontological hierarchy implies an aesthetic hierarchy. In art, the most beautiful thing was considered to be that which brings a person's consciousness closer to God. In traditional aesthetics, it is God who is the source of all beauty. The main function of art for a long time has been an anagogic function – the ability to elevate the consciousness of the perceiver into the high spheres of the spirit ^[10].

"During the reign of great styles, the image of God ultimately shaped the entire aesthetic environment, down to the proportions of furniture, to book screensavers, to patterns on fabric and dishes" ^{[11, p. 441]}. At the same time, the ontological and aesthetic hierarchy make it possible to form an anthropocentric environment: the status of a person is not in doubt, a person creates the world around him for himself.

In traditional aesthetics, the existence of criteria of beauty is implied, the existence of more beautiful and less beautiful is implied. The criteria of beauty allow us to judge the composition, the color, the shape, the plastic, that is, the presence of criteria allows us to evaluate expressive means. To what extent expressive means are adequately and correctly used by the artist to embody a certain idea, plan.

If there are criteria of expressiveness, we can talk about how and how the signifier expresses the signified, how motivated the sign is. The paradox of semiotics as a science is that, having originated in the positivist paradigm, it describes pre-positivist art.

The positivist materialist paradigm has changed the attitude towards art and the role of art. Art is no longer obliged to express high meanings, beauty is an optional quality of art.

But if there is no super-object that sets the criteria of beauty, then there are no aesthetic criteria, and art can be called anything. This was especially evident in the avant-garde, and in Dadaism it was formulated and manifested. And modern researchers of visual media, based on the philosophy of flat ontologies, argue that the neural network product is also art.

At the same time, in the 1920s, design as a social practice was formed and design education emerged. This is already happening in a horizontally oriented materialistic paradigm.

Design originates within a paradigm that denies the super-object, and hence the aesthetic hierarchy. That is, a hundred years ago, the trend of creating a transhumanistic environment that is not focused on humans began. Before the migration of mankind into the digital environment, designers experimented with the creation of commune houses and urban reconstruction projects involving the demolition of old buildings in favor of standard development.

Today, designers form a transhumanistic virtual environment by means of flat design. This cannot be considered malicious intent of the designers, the visual environment simply reflects the existing ideology.

The same ideology is formulated by philosophers who write about flat ontologies. Philosophy offers a concept in which a person does not have a privileged ontological status. This concept logically follows from positivism and the materialistic, or horizontal, line in philosophy.

Conclusions

Design originated in a horizontally oriented paradigm. The paradox of the design phenomenon lies in the fact that it is a social practice originally designed to aestheticize the environment, to individualize objects, as well as to help a person adapt to the environment. But the time of the formation of design coincides with the transition of mankind to a materialistic positivist worldview. The design was created by principled materialists.

Brought to its logical conclusion, this worldview leads to the philosophy of flat ontologies, that is, to the assertion of the equal ontological status of a person and any other object.

The philosophy of flat ontologies denies anthropocentrism, arguing that a person should recognize himself equal in ontological status to inanimate objects, for example, neural networks.

Consequently, a person can no longer claim an environment adapted specifically to his organs of perception. After all, if a machine is recognized as an agent of action, it does not need, for example, decorativeness when visualizing information. Moreover, the visualization of information itself is not needed by the machine, the machine immediately perceives zeros and ones.

That is, design originated in a paradigm, the logical development of which leads to the denial of the very necessity of aestheticizing the environment, and therefore to the denial of design.

That is why flat design style dominates today. This style in itself is practically a denial of design and at its limit, flat design is the absence of design.

Thus, the philosophy of flat ontologies describes the logical conclusion of the materialist paradigm: a world without God, absolutely flat, devoid of the criteria of good and evil, beautiful and ugly. But such a world is also a world without a person, since the ontological status of a person is inextricably linked with the recognition of a super-object, with a vertically oriented consciousness.

Flat design is a visual expression of the philosophy of flat ontologies, since the very history of design and the logic of its development in a horizontally oriented paradigm leads to simulacra of the fourth order, to the absence of design.

Probably, the further existence of the design should be connected with the way out of this philosophical and logical impasse. And for this, it is necessary to recognize the simple fact that the subject and virtual environment exists for a person and must be adapted to human needs. But the anthropocentrism of consciousness is possible only under the condition of classical ontology, and therefore, to the recognition of the existence of a hierarchical vertical.