Representational painting is unique in that from next to nothing a coherent, sometimes very coherent, image of reality is formed. In this sense painting crudely models the formation of the actual world.
And in painting, just as in reality, frameworks that promise freedom 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 slower, faster, 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 having more than one transformation per work isn't worthwhile. I put the question to myself differently; "What if each successive 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 integrated- i.e. the work would approach intrinsic rationality. Because I asked myself something more- does a work always become more difficult as more & more criteria need to be satisfied?
In acquiring dead tradition as the largest/most artificial field of action for the above, this field, in itself, turned out to be as deep as my own purpose.