I started the reflection series in winter 2009 in NYC, after observing at a puddle on one of the streets of NYC. Spending a few minutes in front of the puddle, Cohen realized that it is possible to have a reflection as the main object of an image while the non-reflection could be supporting this object. Cohen main photographic artist statement is to question one’s perception of an image. By using reflections as the main sublet of an image, and using the non-reflection parts, i.e. reality, Cohen hope to have the viewer question the matter that what one see, as real as it looks, may not be the reality. I argue that by using the reflection, as the main objects of the image, yet having the parts, which are not a reflection, appear in the image as a support for this object meaning that even though a photograph is a true recording of reality, it could still be not real.

​

                         The artist seem to think that the reflection makes the reality more appealing to the eye.

                         Does that mean we can question the perception as a mirror to the eye ?