punctually at the performance, in which he must be funny--all these
can produce a poetic "picture," although they cannot be composed like
a painting. Most still deny that, and for that reason recognize, for
example, in the "Twilight" and similar pictures nothing but a
mindless confusion of strange performances. Others believe,
incorrectly, that these kinds of "ideal" pictures are possible in
painting (for example, the Futurist mish mash).

The intention, furthermore, to grasp the reflex of things
directly--without superfluous reflections. Lichtenstein knows that
the man is not stuck to the window, but stands behind it. That the
baby-carriage is not screaming, but the child in the baby- carriage.
Because he can only see the baby-carriage, he writes: the
baby-carriage cries. It would have been untrue lyrically had he
written: a man stands behind a window.

By chance, it is conceptually also not untrue: a boy plays with a
pond. A horse stumbles over a lady. Dogs swear. Certainly one must
laugh in an odd way when one learns to see: that a boy actually uses
a pond as a toy. How horses have a helpless way of stumbling... how
human dogs express their rage...

Sometimes the representation of reflection is important. Perhaps a
poet goes mad--makes a deeper impression than--a poet stares stiffly
ahead--

Something else compelling in the poem: fear and things that resemble
reflection, like: all men must die... or: I am only a little book of
pictures... that will not be discussed here.