Now, watch this clip. I still remember when Holly said: “Poor cat! Poor slob! Poor slob without a name! The way I see it I haven’t got the right to give him one.” Meanwhile, here in Bogost’s book: “Yet naming is only one ontographical method.” (Bogost, 39) Despite the fact that the clip is still about human-animal relationships, “naming” perhaps is not very ontographical enough for naming a human doing to the “unit”.
//
What about the following three “pictographic languages”. I suppose these examples can be an approach to ontography? The pictograms(or logograms to be more accurate) just represents the unit itself, assuring them their own “being” instead of giving them the name. Listing those single pictographs or looking at them as a system could act as visual ontographs or “machines”, maybe?
//source
//source
Also, what about emojis? Can’t they be ontographs?
//source
