Firstly, there are two things you should know about me.

1.) I like minimalism.

2.) I like messiness.

When it comes to semantics (and purposes), these two parts of me are oppositional, but only in the nature of their existence. Much like the reading and Kitchener, Davis’s, and Kuhn’s approaches, these two parts of me share one common factor: ‘an interest in diversity and specificity.’

My bedroom exits within the world and at the same time, creates a personal world. I have clean corners, a white desk, a variety of potted plants and a bed next to the window. Immediately, the relationship between these things appear linked and placed due to their physical restrictions, with such things like height, width, weight and length placing that object within a fitted space. However, in an aesthetic point of view, it is in the interaction between these objects that their full existence occurs, overlapping beyond their physical objectiveness to become a higher assembly of a complimentary ‘bedroom space.’ I could have listed the many items that are on my desk, under the bed, inside the plant pots and outside the corners of the room, but instead, I accounted. This is where ontography becomes a practice and not merely a theory.

Bogost wrote, ‘to create an ontograph involves cataloguing things, but also drawing attention to the couplings of and chasms between them.’ In it’s entirety, the reading is a roundabout explanation of the different ‘ways of looking‘ at ontographs and the density that they produce when considered as a whole. While things present themselves ‘for us‘, ontographs aim to reveal things ‘for themselves‘ by focussing on their parts, their operation and their simultaneous existence. Or quite simply, what it’s like to be a thing.