Chandeliering

What is the mathematical property of words? Is “zero” a word or a number? How about the ever specific “0”? Number? Word? Sound made by the mouth? Are these means of annotation interchangeable, and are words subject to the same distributive, associative, commutative, and inverse properties of mathematics?

Hailing from The Netherlands, Rody Graumans’ constructed chandelier for Droog Design, 85 lamps, inspires these questions. I want to decipher his simple creation into a word problem. I want to explain it mathematically and solve it into being. But, if words do function the same way as numbers, this chandelier doesn’t add up. According to the inverse mathematical property, adding the opposite will cancel out each number resulting in a sum total of zero. So, then, if the antonym of “more” is “less,” and the opposite of “less” is “more,” then wouldn’t this light that proposes both “less and more” cancel itself out in a poof of nonexistence? And, further, isn’t it correct to explain with grammatical rhetoric that eighty-five ≠ one?

Still, 85 lamps remains.

I suppose this light does not require a word problem. The equation is simple: 85 lamps is the sum of bulbs, wires, and connectors. It’s property is not based off of exponents or square roots, but simple math: addition, multiplication (we must remember multiplication is simply repeated addition). Consumers must gather the same evidence that convinces them of pointillism and trust it. One bulb, eighty-five times; one dot, an entire painting.