When I started my research in the mid-80s on the figure intermediary between painting and sculpture, or between the two dimensional and three dimensional, I intuitively thought that the solution came to light and therefore a work associated with space light or as I discovered space-light...
Today I say that light is in a ratio 2,5 or in the dimensional 2,5 .
From my point of view in absolute terms, the second and a half dimension exists, or a 2.5-dimension exists, it is a fully-fledged space and according to my theories: the true dimension of the energy space or the space-energy.
For me, the figure intermediary between painting and sculpture is necessarily a cone of light, art and science moves closer. There are a cone of light in physics and a cone of light in art. The concept of cone of light are differents in the absolute. The three concept elsewhere, the notion of absolute past and absolute future are closely linked to "become in the sense of emerging" in my art and my philosophy. In French we say : "en devenir"
The big difference between art and physics, is that the cone of light in art is in a ratio of 2.5, a ratio that exists in my mind in physics since this is the true dimension (2,5) of light.