conclusions on reflections

I have tried to understand what we read as real and why and to achieve it I have focused on reflections. Reflections and the objects that are reflected create a system that is easily noticeable in the city where this system is formed by many different reflective surfaces that are fully spread out.
This system is a network made of deliberate and accidental causes, such as staged reflections on bodies of water and buildings and spontaneous reflections on puddles and vehicles. The combination of predictable and unpredictable features shows the complexity of this system and it is by means of it that I have extracted some features that help me to explain what we read as real and why.

1. Reciprocity
At the first glance we can interpret reflection system as a means to represent objects. But the objects that is reflecting other is at the same time reflected in other part within the system, therefore we obtain an self-representation system. An autonomous system that does not need anybody to go on working, that is, representing.
To go deeply in this argument I have made an analogy with Las Meninas, where the objects are to the painting as the reflections are to the invisible canvas inside the painting. We don't know what Velazquez is painting so the relationship between the model and the spectator, the object and the subject's role is never determined, this way, as Foucault points out, it can be a pure representation. But at the same time as the mirror inside the painting which give order to the whole composition, is our gaze which recover and establish a relationship between what is reflected and what is not, and this way we give an order, a meaning, composition to that we consider real.
On the contrary, reflection system is not a pure representation since the equivalence between the object's meaning as a value as its reflections a sign does not exist, both are the same, there is not a hidden meaning nor value to discover, what we see and recognise in both cases is real, or, as Baudrillard says, hyperreal, so it is not a representation but a simulation of reality what we face.

2. Dislocation
In the reflection system the dislocation of objects is obvious, but what is really relevant in this search is the dislocation of the subject, or better said, the decentralisation of the subject. It is no longer the role of the subject as a fully intentional and cognoscente individual who read just what is in front because the thinks in the world have been given, but the role of the subject as an individual who read what is real according to a myriad of meanings and discuses that precede him/herself, in this approach the reality is a social construction where the subject has been also socially constructed within reality. But to put all this meaning in a relationship that can create or construct such a complex reality we face it is necessary to put all this fragment in common or in a sort of order.

3. Fragmentation
The reflection system is fragmented as well as the different meanings and discuses we assign to each object and subject in the world to construct reality, this means that reality appears fragmented and the way to tell and elaborate all these fragments is the narrative. But nowadays our way to create the narrative construction of reality differs from the history, as a way to create the reality that we drag from the enlightenment project. As Lyotard states our time is characterised no longer of meta narrative but is made of an abundance of micro or little narratives.

Therefore, the search goes to an end anb it shows that there is no a unique reality but different kind of reality. All the object we see, touch, heard, taste and smell exist but the meaning we give us it has been created by our self over time assigning to them meanings and discourses that are at the same time articulated through narrative, and all of them have been filtered by the subject. In this continuos creation and destruction of what we read as real, the postmodernism is a period in which the role of the subject has been dislocate, it is no longer the centre of the understanding, what we read as real is not given is created and is neither articulate through a unique approach, but all of us have its particular subjective approach to reality. The history of art is full of different possible world and particular realities, paintings, literature, visionary architectures and sculpture for example show us some realities that were constructed by the particular rules of their author. According to this state, the architecture itself, by means of the virtuality can also propose some new way of understanding the world, creating new juxtapositions and spatial relationships. In this term, the cyberspace is a new field to develop this new open and rich individual way of proposing spatian world and realities for the XXI century society.