This work is part of the "Paradise Not Lost" body of work, which explores semi-invented spaces where architecture and nature collide. In this particular work, the space presented is an uncertain one- is it a real space, a real sky, or is it all a stage? The nature of painting itself is one of fabrication, and the shifting quality of paint (transparent to opaque) refers to this and connects to the theme of artifice, implied by the "stage" idea presented in the painting. In the Looking glass refers to the story "Through the Looking-Glass" by Lewis Carroll, but in this case we are suspended between two worlds - essentially within the frame of glass itself. It is an impossible reality, a present and a future - with nature stuck in the middle.

Result #1

This work is part of the "Paradise Not Lost" body of work, which explores semi-invented spaces where architecture and nature collide. In this particular work, the space presented is an uncertain one- is it a real space, a real sky, or is it all a stage? The nature of painting itself is one of fabrication, and the shifting quality of paint (transparent to opaque) refers to this and connects to the theme of artifice, implied by the "stage" idea presented in the painting. In the Looking glass refers to the story "Through the Looking-Glass" by Lewis Carroll, but in this case we are suspended between two worlds - essentially within the frame of glass itself. It is an impossible reality, a present and a future - with nature stuck in the middle. In the Looking glass, then, the human eye is suspended between two possibilities: the nature of the picture and the nature of the human gaze. The distance is both physical and intellectual, and the distance between the two possibilities is defined by the distance between the two possibilities of the painting. The Looking glass is a theoretical question, but the theoretical problem is the philosophical one. The Look at the world is a meaningless gesture. The painting is a form of looking, and it is the same as the human eye. The paintings existence is the existence of a mental image. The paintings surface is like the surface of the human eye, and like the human eye it is a lens. The image of the world is a mental image. The human eye is a human eye. The painting is a metaphor for the human eye, and the human eye is an image of the human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The painting is a metaphor for the human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The painting is a metaphor for the human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye. The human eye is a human eye.

Result #2

This work is part of the "Paradise Not Lost" body of work, which explores semi-invented spaces where architecture and nature collide. In this particular work, the space presented is an uncertain one- is it a real space, a real sky, or is it all a stage? The nature of painting itself is one of fabrication, and the shifting quality of paint (transparent to opaque) refers to this and connects to the theme of artifice, implied by the "stage" idea presented in the painting. In the Looking glass refers to the story "Through the Looking-Glass" by Lewis Carroll, but in this case we are suspended between two worlds - essentially within the frame of glass itself. It is an impossible reality, a present and a future - with nature stuck in the middle. This is the most striking impression, however, since the work is built around the idea of a mirror image, of a gap in the mirror that is both here and not, and the same. It is an image of a space that is not in itself a mirror image of a space, and is not a mirror image of a space. The very impossibility of finding a perfect image of a perfect space is the source of the interest of the work. The problem is not that of viewing the world, of seeing everything as it is; the problem is that of seeing what is not seen. The work is more an image of the world than it is a depiction of a world. It is a work of an image, a real space that is not a space. The image is not the image of the world, but is an image of the world as seen by itself. It is a landscape of glass, and the glass is not the glass; it is a perfect image of the world as seen by itself.The Glass, 1956–57, is a painting in three parts, the first of which is a landscape of glass, the second of which is a landscape of glass, and the third of which is a landscape of glass. The image of the landscape of glass, which is represented here by a glass, is a perfect representation of the perfect landscape. The glass represents the perfect representation of the perfect landscape, and the landscape of glass, which is represented here by a glass, is a representation of the perfect representation of the perfect landscape. The glass is perfect and yet not perfect, a mirage, a mirage of glass. It is a perfect image, but not a representation. It is a representation that is not a representation, but an image of a representation. The glass is not perfect and is not represented by a representation. The glass is represented by a representation, but is not represented by a representation.

Result #3

We can only look upon it as a mirror, but in this case, the mirror is both a wall and a stage, both a setting for the image and a stage in itself. This is what we see, and what we see is what we are looking at.

Result #4

In this painting the artist is both painting and looking at himself. He is looking at himself, and at nature. His works are more than merely paintings, however, they are also experiments in painting. Their difficult, ambiguous, and complicated status is due to their very being imaginary, but they also show the artist at his most ambiguous.

Result #5

This work is part of the "Paradise Not Lost" body of work, which explores semi-invented spaces where architecture and nature collide. In this particular work, the space presented is an uncertain one- is it a real space, a real sky, or is it all a stage? The nature of painting itself is one of fabrication, and the shifting quality of paint (transparent to opaque) refers to this and connects to the theme of artifice, implied by the "stage" idea presented in the painting. In the Looking glass refers to the story "Through the Looking-Glass" by Lewis Carroll, but in this case we are suspended between two worlds - essentially within the frame of glass itself. It is an impossible reality, a present and a future - with nature stuck in the middle. In the Looking glass, the glass seems to have broken. The painting is a broken mirror, a shattered window. In the scene at the end of the stage, a young woman, her head tilted slightly, is seen from behind. The glass is broken, but the painting is still up. The painting has been torn from the frame and scattered on the floor, but the broken glass, the broken mirror, are all visible in the surface of the painting. The painting is in a precarious situation, and it is the painting that is in a precarious position.The artists in the stage set seem to have the same vulnerability, as the painting is broken, but it is not destroyed. The broken glass, the broken mirror, and the broken glass all represent the artists, but they are not their audience. It is the audience that is broken, but it is not the audience that is broken. The broken glass and the broken mirror all refer to the audience, and they are not part of the audience. The broken glass is an image of the audience, the broken mirror is a metaphor for the audience. The glass is broken, but it is not a metaphor for the audience. The broken glass is a symbol of the audience, the broken mirror is a metaphor for the audience. The broken glass, the broken mirror, and the broken glass are the paintings, and they are not meant to be taken as mere critiques of the audience, but as an invitation to see the painting as an audience. The broken glass is a metaphor for the audience, the broken glass is a metaphor for the audience. The broken glass is a metaphor for the audience, the broken mirror is a metaphor for the audience. The broken glass is a metaphor for the audience, and it is not a metaphor for the audience. The audience is not broken. The broken glass is an image of the audience, the broken mirror is a metaphor for the audience.

©2021 Lucidbeaming