The image is not a closed field of knowledge; it is a whirling, centrifugal field. It is not a field of knowledge like any other; it is a movement demanding all the anthropological aspects of being and time.
Images embrace us: they open up to us and close themselves to us in so far as they conjure up in us something that we could call an interior experience.
Photography works hand in glove with image and memory and therefore possesses their notable epidemic power.
Does inadequacy not characterize all that we make use of to perceive and describe the world? Are the signs of language not just as inadequate, albeit differently, as are images?
