"What is" versus "What could be".
What role does language as a way of knowing play in determining “what” something is? Is the desire to change the way we view the world in Art connected to or related to the desire to change the world itself and is part of the techne and logos that we call “technology”?
The “present” as the “what is” is contrasted with the “future” as the “what could be”.
Picasso for example, like most artists, questions “why the why?” as our experience of being-in-the-world. The “present” and “future” relate to time, so art as producere, “a bringing forth” of something that was not, is implied in the contrast.
Thus in this vein, is there an objective difference between the present, the past and the future in the first place?