Yes, it is all about the diorama in our head, that is our knowledge, rendered by our perception system, which is isomorphic to the external world via our senses.
When you think about it, the brain could render the knowledge at any point in the chain of visual perception, including possibly only representing knowledge of the image on our retina. Our brain just normally represents knowledge of whatever is immediately upstream from the eyes, before the chain enters the body. But in the case of this image of yours, since the painting is perfectly aligned with the light that would be coming from behind it, it 'seems', or is rendered by our perception system as if it was knowledge that actually existed beyond the painting.
The only reason people think red is associated with light, is simp[ly because light is the last point in the chain, before it enters the body. But of course, if you put a red green inverter immediately after the retina, grenness is then associated with red light, proving redness has nothing to do with the light.
Also, we don't perceive the knowledge our perception system renders, including it's intrinsic colorness qualities. Perception is done from afar, and results in knowledge, This knowledge is different. We directly apprehend it. If we 'perceived' our knowledge, that would be the same as the cartesian theater homunculus, which results in an infinite regress of interpretations of interpretations, or perceptions of perceptions, the physical definition of redness never being defined, anywhere.
Again, for a description of the difference between perception and direct apprehension see the description starting at 4:55 into this video.
Brent
