ekphrasis.\u00a0<\/em>Like Nabokov lists over 150 paintings in his collected works. So why shouldn\u2019t the inverse also be true?\u201d<\/p>\nAsking Salgado about the intentions, symbolism, or directive in this collection of paintings \u2013 because it\u2019s obviously ripe with his (now) trademark imagery \u2013 he becomes deferential, ambiguous, and almost evasive about everything from idea to technique, to presentation, and\u00a0even<\/em>\u00a0the compelling title piece: a rare venture into sculpture which seems \u2013 whether through its books or its chair, or its uncanny, discombobulated human parts \u2013 to reference the paintings and even the act of painting itself. But also books. Words. Memory. Fallability. That head at the apex is glass. It\u2019s his.<\/p>\n\u201cBooks are like time. An author you love is like a memory you cherish. How much time is enough time? There\u2019s never enough time. That clock is always ticking. I always read blind. I never read a blurb or a summary, because every unread book is an infinite possibility. I chose a title called\u00a0Glory<\/em>\u00a0and I remember thinking, that\u2019s a strange title.\u00a0Glory. Glory\u00a0<\/em>could be about anything. Until I opened it up, until I\u00a0actually started<\/em>\u00a0reading.\u00a0Glory\u00a0<\/em>could be about\u00a0everything<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\nIf paintings are chapters, viewers are invited to explore them in whatever order they like. As members of a larger audience, we supplant meaning into the books we read, we interpret meaning from the sentences we hear. \u201cBut it\u2019s all there. It\u2019s ready for the taking. And whatever you take from it \u2013 from the books, or the paintings, or the ideas within \u2013 it\u2019s all right. It\u2019s all correct. There are no wrong answers.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n