Of the many of connotations in philosophy and the theory of art that Red Eyes involve, let me refer to two here. By reducing the theme of the work to the very organ of perception, Rennes seems to perform his version of the phenomenological reduction in the Husserlian sense: in order to establish a firm ground for observation and exploration, at first we must be aware of the fact that the only valid statement we can initially make about the subject of the inquirer is that it acts. What cogito means for Husserl, (rejecting Descartes conclusion -"ergo sum"), I see means for Rennes here. The starting point of valid artistic inquiry is this kind of most fundamental self-awareness. Any inquiry may unfold from this. At the same time, Red Eyes raises the theme of the error. Rennes makes the theme of his work an effect that photographers regard as a technical glitch. Ironically, however, this glitch becomes the phenomenon inspiring the birth of a work of art, a new phenomenon, and a new (aesthetic) quality - whereby it also presents an analogy with the world in general, considering that evolution is a series of "faults" or errors. Novelty is a result of deviation from the ordinary working of an established system - a result of errors.