Some of you logging on to this site might find the images a bit out of focus, others at a slight angle.  Apologies for this.  But it does raise the question of WHAT IS PERFECTION?  An image at a slight angle is - an image at a slight angle, a phenomenon in itself.  There is no law that says that all images MUST be precisely even to the lines above and to the side of them.  The element 'a slight angle' is just that, an element.  Is it a positive or a negative element?  Neither, it is just an element.  Similarly, an image slightly out of focus is also an object in itself.  Most photos are clearly in focus on websites and elsewhere.  This is the prevailing 'norm' for the presentation of photos.  Might be said to be the agreed consensus as to the way photos are presented.  But, some photos are deliberately out of focus.  With the photos on this site I might have tried to get the images in photos, but, since they are not, they exist as 'perfect slightly out of focus photos'.  They give you an idea about the actual art work, which is what a clear photo would do as well.  No photo on a website can precisely reproduce the actual art work, only ever give the viewer an idea what it looks like.  This is what these 'perfectly flawed photos' do - give you an idea what the actual art work looks like.
      Generally, in my view, Homo Sapiens is surrounded by perfection.  All animals can be seen to be perfect beings in themselves.  A cat, for example, is perfect in his/her catness, whatever colour, size, age, temperament he/she is.  Likewise all cats.  A cat with a disease is a perfect creature temporarily striken with a perfect illness, which would, in itself, be a phenomenon of fascination for vets.  So - all animals, wild or domestic, and all flora.  Homo Sapiens, him/herself can also be seen to be perfect in all particulars.  Thus, the objects he/she creates, perfect in themselves.  THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE - particular aesthetic phenomena and no other.
       It may well be that 'the establishment' thinks in terms of excellant, good, mediocre, bad when judging works of art, and indeed, people as well (but, that's another subject).  However, works of art, as stated, just ARE WHAT THEY ARE, and perfect in themselves.  It is possible to find fault with them.  But, what are the faults?  ELEMENTS which go to the making up of the whole work.  In my view, then, all works of art are equal, because each is equally perfect, objects in themselves, unique and individual.  I can find fault with the total painterly opus of Capitalism down the past 600 years since it can be seen to be superficial reworks of one major form (in the main) THE 2-D, RECTANGULAR, SINGLE FIXED IMAGE.  Which, to my mind, is a pretty pathetic cultural heritage.  A major fault line runs through all paintings which are - fixed, flat, rectangular, single image, framed.  But, at the same time, those works are perfect, objects in themselves and the perceived fault is an element.  An element I would like to see erradicated from future work, for a variety of reasons, but, if it is retained (as it probably will be) by painters internationally, that's O.K. too.  It seems very banal, to me, that the same form should be reworked century after century, when all around many things have changed radically, but, if that is what is wanted - fair enough.  The majority has voted for retaining the perceived banality.  Odd, to my mind, but no doubt it is convenient.  The history of painting since 1450, the history of a public convenience banality.  But, it is what it is, so perfect.  Obviously the establishment would tend to disagree about the first part of that statement.
     But, in relation to this website - any 'faults' you might see in the art work would be seen through, as it were, the aesthetic criteria in your head.  I'm in no position to know what those criteria are.  I have my own set of aesthetic criteria and, obviously, they would conflict with other peoples'.  But, as far as finding fault with this work, you can't.  IT IS WHAT IT IS, and thus perfect.  But, this kind of perfection might not be to your taste.  Which kind of bird, tree, flower or animal do you find fault with?  These are appreciated for what they are.  So, why judge works of art?  Each is beautiful in its own way.  And if the history of painting since 1450 can be dismissed as a history of a public convenience banality, it is a quite beautiful banality.  Though, because so banal, this dimension seems to cancel out the beauty.
      As far as the Myriad Image Abstracts are concerned, again.  Each of the image variables are perfect in themselves.  The changes that occur on them due to reflections are also perfect.  So, in each variable, you will have perfection overlaid with perfectionS (with a capital S).  Perfection multiplied by one hundred million +.  But, I will try to take some more photos that are more in tune with your probable idea of perfection in art work.  This will take some time.  Unfortunately, this site has a limit on the number of images one can upload.  So, no more can be uploaded.