This particular photograph seemed to suggest a possible response; not an answer but rather an appropriate deflection of reality, of representation. The hue of the blue suggested a transgression somewhere in the process. The blue that I viewed, that I absorbed above me, encompassing me with the air became associated with an image that cannot be ‘blue’. Literally it cannot be the same blue, nor a representation of it because this ‘blue’ is uncertain, floating. It could just as easily be ‘ciel’ or ‘mer’, there is nor surety in this ‘blue’.  The ‘blue’ of this photograph filled the frame and included little blurry white marks, that seemed either accidental or incidental; it is impossible to know whether they were intended or not.  They could just as easily have been a mistakes in the printing process, dust on the lens of the camera or elements of the scene. Is this photograph a representation of sky? It seems an unusual hue of blue and what are these marks? How do I know it is a photograph of ‘that-has-been’ at all? Could it be a digital construction with no referent? Except the idea of ‘blue’? But this idea of ‘blue’ has no way to prove its ‘blueness’, unless we believe in the conceits of language, of conventional signification. I could show you the photograph, but there would be no point because you would just see blue, but not see the same blue, not the same image: ‘for you, no wound’.

Blue, sandblasted acrylic, 2009