This piece is meant to be a meta-statement on how art is open to interpretation, and in a broader sense, how our perception of the phenomena around us itself may not be as rigid as we may like to think it is. An homage to the absurdity that is qualia, and that which lies at the confluence of ontology and epistemology. Perhaps, even, a piece that urges you to question what exactly is "perception"? (Like the shadows, some standing, others sitting, on the "floors" and "walls" seemingly inspecting what they seem to believe is something worth inspecting) and also question who exactly is being perceived when you view this work of art? Is the subject of your perception the work of art? Or, perhaps, it's your perception of the work of art? And so on, (ad infinitum, as the mathematicians say) like the frame at the center of the piece, receding to infinity. But, then again, this is my interpretation of this work of art, a suitable construction to express a collection of thoughts that I felt were worth sharing. Of course, the forms and colors used, and the composition may invoke a different set of emotions, and thoughts, that may manifest in a different interpretation, which is not incorrect, as there is no "correct" way to perceive, it just is, it is what it is.
Comments