Why is it that Anna returns to painting again and again? Why does she, among other things, repeatedly talk about the ability to see as being a prerequisite for painting? I say “among other things” because for her, any question always grows into a broad-based, universally applicable problem statement. Against that, painting is just what it is: an illusion. But as long as the possibility of an inherent semblance remains, Anna will not burn bridges. Moreover, it seems that painting, the precise and skilful labour that she corrects with the help of the camera (as is nowadays done by almost every painter who does not work solely on emotions) brings her joy and satisfaction. For her, the familiar, unquestionable clarity of painting has a liberating effect.