I found these three sentences spread separately on a piece of A4 paper near The National Art School in Sydney:

1. “What does the hairdresser see between mirrors?” — Thomas Stevenson

The customer's side views. If you are going to draw perspective is important.

“Is the dot inside the circle the dot outside the sphere?”. — Thomas Stevenson

The difference between 2D and 3D drawing. A good artist will make a ball with a spot on it appear to be a ball with a spot on it, not just a circle with a spot in it.

“When the pieces stop moving, the witness goes blind.” — Thomas Stevenson

Drawings, paintings, even statues need to show action to make them realistic. There is a lot of difference between the realness of a painting of a potted plant sitting on a table and a plant in a garden that has people and life around it.

I found these three sentences spread separately on a piece of A4 paper near The National Art School in Sydney:

1. “What does the hairdresser see between mirrors?”

2. “Is the dot inside the circle the dot outside the sphere?”.

3. “When the pieces stop moving, the witness goes blind.”

I've been wracking my brain, and I have some ideas about what each sentence means, but I'm really interested in what others think. — Thomas Stevenson

What I see is pretentiousness, as in three generally vague statements devoid of context, presented in an art show pretending to have significance. It's what happens when mediocre minds have nothing to say. They say nothing and stand around and pretend like they said something.

That's what I see. That's the beauty of art. We can all see different things when we look at it.

I was thinking along similar lines - all three seem to be about perspective. I have an idea what I think each one means but I'll wait to see what others think first.

Your take on these riddles is quite inspiring. Thank you for this!

Allow me to venture a few propositions:

1. “What does the hairdresser see between mirrors?” — Thomas Stevenson

=> It is interesting that this question is never asked when there is a discussion about image reflection on two mirrors parallel and opposite to each other. While most would argue an endless procession of images, the other truth is that the same reflections obscure the fact of the hairdresser's reality. The images on the mirror will always be a dimension short of reality - 2D not 3D. Also, in the mirror, the hairdresser does not see a person between two mirrors, they just see a person (or only what is between the mirrors), over and over, which is not the right perspective.

- This riddle may explain the saying by Carl G. Jung which states, "who looks outside, dreams; who looks within, awakes." All the significant details are right there in between the mirrors where direct observation is possible. Within the mirrors is the reflection (image, facade) but not the reality. We seek the truth of our lives by seeking meaning from external phenomena when we should be studying ourselves because we are that truth manifest. Our lives are absolute to us, what else can be greater?

2. “Is the dot inside the circle the dot outside the sphere?” — Thomas Stevenson

=> "...When love beckons to you, follow him, Though his ways are hard and steep.
And When his wings enfold you yield to him, Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And When he speaks to you believe in him, Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden..."
"...But if in your fear you would seek only love’s peace and love’s pleasure, Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love’s threshing-floor,
Into the season-less world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears..." (From The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran - It's a teaching on love.)

The second riddle can be explained from the above quote. This is a world of pleasure and pain, of highs and lows, of relativity. Those who think they can choose one without recourse for the other are lost. They are like that dot within the circle which from the bigger perspective is a dot outside the sphere. The highs of this generation are the lows of the next. Human evolution is a flower that blooms on the grave (or from the demise) of past civilizations. Our greatest feats, the 'epicentre of our circle', are to the next generation a cautionary tale, 'a point outside their sphere'.

3. “When the pieces stop moving, the witness goes blind.” — Thomas Stevenson

=> Perception is perspective. Perspective is a frame of reference, a relative aspect between viewpoints. Without perspective, there is no perception. (This is kind of a layman's interpretation - Here, perception is a part of the process towards knowing and understanding and therefore action.)

=> Also, Life is activity. To 'be' is to 'do'.

"3:5. No one can stay truly action-less even for a moment, for the properties of prakriti (matter or substance) compel all to act!
4:18. They who see non-action in activity and action in inactivity are truly conscious... "
(From The Bhagavad Gita - teachings by Krishna.)

1. “What does the hairdresser see between mirrors?”

This could have many extraneous answers.
A. At the hair shop, one would see the wall that the two mirrors are mounted against.
B. She could see herself.
C. Air that is invisible, but is between the mirrors.
ETC

I think the interesting answer is the opposing mirror effect where you see many reflections in a row.

3. “When the pieces stop moving, the witness goes blind.”
.
If you invert the sentence, you get: "When there is movement, the camouflaged becomes visible".

I like that answer the best. Cats and hawks only see their prey from a distance when they move.

"who looks outside, dreams; who looks within, awakes." All the significant details are right there in between the mirrors where direct observation is possible. Within the mirrors is the reflection (image, facade) but not the reality. — BrianW

I had always thought about this one as if the infinite reflection was the greater reality, obstructed from view by one's one head, the apparatus for perception. But I like what you said, I'm going to keep thinking about it.

If you invert the sentence, you get: "When there is movement, the camouflaged becomes visible".

That's my bet for this one too. I didn't arrive at that take until I tried inverting it also.

Thanks everyone!

They are short and enigmatic.

What does the hairdresser see between the two mirrors? If the mirrors are back to back (or front to front) he or she probably can't see anything between the two mirrors. What can you see between two bricks? It depends how far apart the two bricks are, for starters.

What happens when you stare into the abyss?

What happens when you stare into the abyss? — Bitter Crank

You get scared? :gasp:

Per Nietzsche: "He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee."

If you gaze into an abbess, she'll probably be quite annoyed.

What I see is pretentiousness, as in three generally vague statements devoid of context, presented in an art show pretending to have significance. It's what happens when mediocre minds have nothing to say. They say nothing and stand around and pretend like they said something. — Hanover

I agree with Hanover. You can make these kinds of statements mean whatever you want without context. Apart from a context, they are just words. So what happens is that people give these words their own context, i.e., a subjective meaning based on their private context. We do this with art, and that's fine, but trying to make something significant out it as though there is some deep meaning to it, is silly.

Interesting how some of the replies try to address the (possible) non-literal meanings the phrases might carry. :up: :smile: Disappointing, but not surprising, how many take them literally, then wonder why they make so little sense.... :wink: :smile: These statements were made by artists. :smile:

If you gaze into an abbess, she'll probably be quite annoyed. — Bitter Crank

But it would be nicer to do. :joke:

I think part of the problem is the way the OP is phrased, which seems to presume that there is some particular hidden meaning to each sentence whereas it seems obvious to me that they are exercises for the imagination. But, yes, accusations of pretentiousness do seem to miss the point.

Interesting how some of the replies try to address the (possible) non-literal meanings the phrases might carry. :up: — Pattern-chaser

Is there any suggestion that there might be either literal or non-literal meanings? The OP asks people for suggestions about the possible meaning. Anything is therefore a possible correct answer.

Disappointing, but not surprising, how many take them literally, then wonder why they make so little sense.... :wink: :smile: — Pattern-chaser

Again, is there any reason not to take them literally? Are you an artist? For all we know they might be nothing more than ideas for a painting, or even names for a book.

These statements were made by artists. :smile: — Pattern-chaser

First of all they are not statements but questions. Secondly there is no proof that they were written by an artist. If they had been found near a police station, would you have taken them to be crime scene notes?

I'm going to take the best interpretations of these, print them and put them up where I found the originals with a contact email. I'll bet you the artist(s) replies.

These resemble zen poetry to me. Zen koans can seem nonsensical at first, but they are used to increase understanding of very specific concepts (thought at first they might seem bamboozling or self-indulgent). We'll see.

We'll see. — Thomas Stevenson

That will be interesting.

Turns out that the riddles were left in public by the creators of this fringe play, which was on a couple of weeks ago: https://thisisnotart.org/events/metaphysics-at-gunpoint-friday/