Glasses are an optical device and a sort of prothesis. Through their presence they evoke the presence (or absence) of their owner. The meaning “circling” around the object is a play on cultural conceptions of the presence of the third eye: a short-sighted deity, and perhaps the effect of a frightful mutation? The presence (or absence) of the owner is in some sense painful to them. I believe that the impression generated by this object is located somewhere in the sphere of phantom pains, traumatic and paradoxical at the same time. How can something hurt if it’s not there? And perhaps the third eye also never existed. It was only (and as much as) the paranoia of a madman, convinced it does exist. After all, schizophrenia causes and evokes numerous phantoms. What then has a stronger status of “being” in the case of mental illness, and what is more “real”: the phantom, the paranoia, or the matter, factography? These aspects are in a struggle, but with no hope of ever resolving the “contest”. There is another story behind this object, very private, equally legitimate as illegitimate, allowing us to speculate in all sorts of other directions. There is both illness and its absence in this story. And this is the main purpose of the object: to establish its archaeology, to activate thinking about its genesis; there is the gesture of inquiring after the truth of the matter of this matter, and at the same time a search for that which is located beyond it. As history, associations, narratives, aspects, modes.