Indirect rebound

I was thinking about peering down a microscope or a well or a sewer or into a woodpecker's hole or out from my pupils. There's only ever one thing there. Why would a person choose to make a painting as a way of grappling with the question of what is a thing?

I have some small paintings of Jack's to look at. They're like moonrocks. You know if you were holding a moonrock you'd feel as if the properties of the moon were summed up in that fragment. So what are the properties of Jack's paintings?

There are some grumpy academics in my head who want to point out that it's very "boujie" of me to choose paintings as a point of focus. They are uncomfortable with their dad's fortune. He strung them a destiny hammock and they try to stand in it. It makes them wobble uncontrollably.

I defend myself by telling them it's a love story - you can't argue with a love story. Someone's feeling's might get hurt. But it's not that kind of love story. By love I just mean simultaneous event. All at once. We enjoy being consumed in the combustion together. Someone said space and time were only invented so that everyting bad didn't happen at once.

Paintings are a kind of combustion because they're visible. Visibility is a kind of fire. Jack's paintings are the results of some kind of turmoil. Things burn more intensely and are more noticeable in this kind of turmoil. Do Jack's paintings run alongside the burning of a life, is that what makes them so self evident?