Before understanding dawns, some art may enrage. But art does not exist in a vacuum. It is all part of a landscape, both collective and individual. This landscape is the context and, without it, art appears meaningless and can be easily misunderstood. A single pixel can give substance to a work of art, or a whole movement. Sometimes a single pixel is all that is needed. That is the power of creativity, that is the volume at which such thoughts can be heard, that is the intensity of their vision.

Here, Adam presents a literal interpretation of an elegant but nuanced idea, embedded in a gaudy, overcomplicated space. Would there really be a landscape without the dawn? What provides meaning here, the single white pixel, or the environment it reveals? Or is this just a false dichotomy?