The ambiguity between the desirable and the certainty is a vehicle for reflexion and the exercise of thought.
It is more useful to doubt the little or nothing apparent to incite the imagination and the subjective because it may be more powerful than the real and the explicit. Just to look maybe is not enough to understand what we do not understand, and it is because we only look at it, we do not see it or observe it to face the doubt of a perhaps .... to judge the only thing that we see is to situate ourselves in a plane scarcely intelligible.
I do not want to be explicit, I just want to provoke and shake the attention of the observer using the apparent, the impact that these images can have in a first vision. The metaphor of the flesh mediating abstractions of pieces of something that we see to pre-learn can be this or that, but something does not fit ....
It is about taking the observer to a contemplation that to contextualize or dissociate, that explains what he sees so that from that abstraction can or want to find what does not exist, which is not concrete because it has no association with the real, because everything It is imaginary, it is only a representation. They are only abstractions on decontextualized pieces that speak of naked or broken meat ..., and lights and shadows..., but it is never and will be what it seems, whatever it is is and will be the subjective vision that each observer reifies. And to show only real and desirable would be more reassuring, but it would not be enough.