1.

A rainbow appears under special conditions: it has to be somewhat sunny, it has to be raining, and someone has to be there to see it. The first two conditions are obvious enough, but can a rainbow exist without an observer? I don’t pose this question in a metaphysical sense and it’s not meant to be a riddle. The answer is no, and can be explained easily according to the most basic laws of physics.
The position of a rainbow depends on the observer’s location in relation to the sun. A rainbow always appears in the exact opposite direction of the sun with respect to the observer. The arc of the rainbow is centered around the shadow of the observer’s head, or more precisely where the eyes are on the head. All raindrops refract and reflect the sunlight in the same way, but only the light from some raindrops reaches the observer's eye. This light is what constitutes the rainbow for that observer. Different simultaneous observers see different rainbows, because each is at a distinctly different location. Without a seeing eye the phenomenon of a rainbow does not occur because the geometry and angles of reflected light, which create the color spectrum, depend on perspective. Only after the light has passed though our eyes and into our mind where it is perceived do we form the picture for ourselves of the rainbow.
The same is also true of seeing, for example, a tree. Something is there, the scientist says atoms and molecules, but we know that they are mostly empty space so the "solidity" is an illusion created by our sense of touch and our overall perception system, which has gone ahead and constructed the image of a solid and impenetrable tree for us. Although more complex physics are involved, the way we perceive a tree is similar to the way we perceive a rainbow, and because of how it is constructed in our mind, is just as illusive.
Most serious physicists have already pretty much concede the fact that it’s impossible to even talk about the nature of matter without talking about consciousness. They tell us that what we consider to be the building blocks of reality, namely atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, etc, are entirely built-up from quantum mechanical waves. And what are these waves are composed of? They have absolutely no idea and have given up on speculating. Every theory so far put forth has proven false. They tell us that something is there, but we do not know what it is, and probably never will.
So the only thing we are ever really dealing with is our own human constructs. We like to call this reality, and it certainly seems that way, but there is nevertheless an illusive rainbow like quality to all of what we know.
And yet,
and yet, in spite of this, knowing that everything is essentially nothing, or whatever it is we can’t really figure out, here we are, living our lives, interacting with one another, seeing beauty in a rainbow, falling in love, building a house, playing checkers, writing statements about art, drinking coke, tying our shoes… Doing all the things we do as if there were some purpose, some meaning. Would it be helpful if when I’m talking to my daughter about what she did at school that day I constantly remind myself “This conversation is nothing more than quantum mechanical waves – it’s all a human construct.” over and over again? I don’t think that would be helpful or relevant at all, even if it were absolute truth.
This place, this intersection, between the external world of pure experience, shit happening in the world, and our inner world where everything is synthesized, perceived, and mingles with thought, emotion, imagination, etc. is where my work is. At its most elemental I’m just looking for the instances where these things rub together, and then trying increase the friction.

2.

A short statement about this statement: I started writing this kind of in the form of theory, but I don't think that's what it is. It's rough, fragmented, and unfinished. The part about the apples gets weird, was trying to do a Plato line of questioning thing, but feels lame. After that it falls apart. Feedback welcomed.

--

Looking up at the sky at night we see an incredible number of stars. We see these by means of the light “carrying” the stars to us, there is a trail of light leading out from each star directly into our eyes, which means that this vast expanse of sky must be completely filled with this light which passes through the small holes of our pupils and into our eyes.
Another person in a different location would see the same vast night sky as as I would. The stars seen in the sky are all present in the light at any eye point – this totality is contained in each small area of space.

We live at a boundry between two worlds, two areas which exist separately for us: an inner world of thought which we relate to as being very much connected with our own individuality, and an external world which we view as being completely separate from. Like workers operating the bulldozer of our body we manipulate the world, but do not consider ourselves and much less our thoughts to part of the fabric which weaves everything together as a whole.
We are all more or less aware that our thoughts come to us through our encounter with reality. We receive through our senses objects in time and space, we are aware of an incredibly complex and multifaceted and constantly changing external world, while at the same time we also live in a more or less richly developed inner world. All of this comes to us in a seemingly completed form, we have not consciously contributed to this situation. We first receive the world through our senses instantly as pure experience. We then begin the mental work of classification, dividing the world according to form, color, texture, tone, etc. We try to justify the relationships of everything we encounter looking for causes, effects, and laws. If we see a ball rolling down the street we follow it’s path backward to understand what made it roll, constantly looking for related events. We now know the world in a dual way, through pure experience plus thinking.

When I see three apples I know I am dealing with two things: the apples, and the number three. How do I know this? I know what apples are from experience, I've seen them, touched them, smelled them, eaten them, picked them, and even read books about them. I have no doubt that when an apple is in front of me I know what it is. And how do I know there are three? I learned how to count to three even before I went to school. Since then I have had so many experiences dealing with groups of three that I know when I am dealing with three things instantly without counting. I perceive the apples through my senses, all I have to do is open my eyes and there they are. The number three however is a little trickier and requires slightly more effort on my part. Certainly there are three apples there in front of me, but the number three is only there because of the apples. If I remove an apple, the three disappears, or more precisely, changes into a two; still apples, but no three. If I replace the apple I removed with a new apple, the three returns. It’s not the same three apples, but the number three is the same number three I had before. If I replace an apple with an orange I no longer have three apples, but I do have three pieces of fruit – the same number three from before, complete and unaltered. The number is constant and unchanging no matter what it is attached to, but does not exist anywhere on it’s own in the physical world. I can never experience the number three without the mediation of a group of objects except in pure abstract thought. There the number three exists in it’s pure form and I can understand it completely.
But what happens if we just leave the three apples sitting there for a long time. After awhile certain natural processes take hold, the apples begin to rot, decay, shrink, dry, and after a very long time turn to dust and blow away. At some point in that process the apples cease to be apples, and also at some point the number tree also ceases to be relevant and when this happens it seems to me that we have reached some kind of threshold.