Representational painting is unique in that from next to nothing a coherent, sometimes very coherent, sometimes very coherent, image of reality is formed. In this sense painting crudely models the formation of the actual world.
And in painting, as in reality, frameworks that promise advancement are tricky; facilitating one thing as they degrade another. Already we have some useable frameworks though. For example, frameworks that introduce a unitary change into the production or perception of artworks, making them bigger, smaller, whiter, blacker, shifting their venue, etc. are part of the currency of art now - and appropriately so - using them increases the clarity of both artist and viewer.
There have been excellent claims that using more than one transformation in a work isn't worthwhile. I put the question to myself differently; "What if each single work transform reversed the ends and means of its predecessor?". That is, the subject of each step would be the technique of the prior step and vice versa. Then, ideally, as the number of steps increased, end and mean would be increasingly integrated- i.e. the work would approach intrinsic rationality.
In acquiring dead tradition as the largest/most artificial field for the above, this field, in itself, turned out to be as deep as my own original purpose.
But now the components of specific paintings in progress reside as files. The problem is naturally separated into parts- theory-ready.
This statement had no master statement. I didn't designate the above last two paragraphs with successive symbols, consider the end of one and possible means of the other in writing this summarizing paragraph. I examined this strategic 'impossibility' this past 'Summer of Insight'.