Object Continuity

My most recent attempt at a model of the objects has actually proven more successful than the last.  I made an earlier model of the objects on a flat board, looking at where they could be if they were on a table.  Then I made an attempt at an object model using only one copy of the painting.  It worked to some extent to show that there is continuity between objects.  I tried a sort of diorama model looking again at where the objects would be located in space.  That model had an inclined plane and I placed the objects so that if you were looking at the model straight on, the objects would be at the right heights.  The failure in that logic is that some of the objects looked like they were on top of each other. 

The funny part is the fact that the objects look like they are on top of each other is why the new model works.  In the new model, I started by cutting out the objects and folding them where the tops or bottoms were shown in plan.  I was placing one glass in front of another when I realized that the parts in plan coincided with each other.  The objects step back into each other so all of the objects are connected.  Thinking about this, it makes sense why I kept getting stuck on where the objects sit and why it doesn’t matter what the objects are. In 2D space, all of the objects overlap- I assumed the overlapping was only about transparency, but any rules I tried to set up for what was transparent failed.  The painting is a piece of art, it isn’t supposed to be completely logical.  But I couldn’t accept that the objects might not all be sitting, separately in 3D space, and I was still caught up on the fact that I didn’t understand what some of the objects are or why they could be on a table.  I think you still need to be able to recognize the shapes, but some of the objects find their place as you travel through the objects.

Top view

Front view