some blurbs

To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed. It means putting oneself into a certain relation to the world that feels like knowledge- and, therefore, like power. In a now notorious first fall into alienation, habitual zing people to abstract the world into printed words, is suppose to have engendered that surplus of Faustian energy and psychic damage needed to build modern, inorganic societies. … photographed images do not seem to be statements about the world so much as pieces of it, miniatures of reality that anyone can make or acquire.

What renders a photograph surreal is its irrefutable pathos as a message from the time past.

Photography implies that we know about the world f we accept it as the camera records it. But this is the opposite of understanding, which starts from not accepting the world as it looks.

“A photograph is not an accident- it is a concept” Ansel Adams insists. The ‘machine gun’ approach to photography - by which many negatives are made with hope that one will be good - is fatal to serious results.” To take a good photograph, runs the common claim, one must already see it.

Susan Sontag: on photography

I was interested in photography only for “sentimental” reasons; I wanted to explore it not as a question ( a theme) but as a wound: I see, I feel, hence I notice, I observe, and I think.

Yet it is not by paining that photography touches art, but theater. Niepce and Daguerre are always put at the origin of photography; now Daguerre..was running a panorama theater animate by light shows and movements in the Place du Chateau. The camera Obsucra, in short, has generated at one and the same time perspective painting, photography, and diorama, which are all three areas of the stage.

Roland Barthes Camera Lucidia

Adelbert Ames was a Dartmouth College scientist whose research at the Dartmouth ere institute established a foundation in perceptual research that has provided an experimental demonstration of the way we process information. Ames showed that perception is based not only upon whatever is out there, before one’s gazed, but also and equally upon one’s previous perceptions, and upon one’s purpose, and upon one’s readiness to perceive.

Aesthetics lies in ruins not only because of logical faults, but also because modern perception theory has destroyed its entire psychological foundations

Adam Baer, Displaced perspectives, Reality just aint what it used to be, ANTHONY BANNON

The artists is the origin of the work. The work is the origin of the artist. Neither is without the other. Never the less, neither is in the sole support of the other. In themselves and in their interrelations artist and work are each of them by virtue of a third thing which is prior to both. Namely that which also gives artist an work of art their names

Art- this is nothing more then a word (world) to which nothing real any longer corresponds.

The art work is, a thing that is made, its says something other than the mere thing itself. The work makes public something other than itself; it manifest something other; it is an allegory.

The work, there fore is not the reproduction of some particular entity that happens to be present at any given time; it is, on the contrary, the reproduction of the thing’s general essence

Martin Heidegger, Origin of the work of art

All these formulations have been possible thanks to the initial distinction between different irreducible types of genesis and structure: worldly genesis and transcendental genesis, empirical structure, eidetic structure, and transcendental structure. To ask oneself the following historic-semantic question: "What does the notion of genesis in general, on whose basis the Husserlian diffraction could come forth and be understood, mean, and what has it always meant? What does the notion of structure in general, on whose basis Husserl operates and operates distinctions between empirical, eidetic, and transcendental dimensions mean, and what has it always meant throughout its displacements? And what is the historico-semantic relationship between genesis and structure in general?" is not only simply to ask a prior linguistic question. It is to ask the question about the unity of the historical ground on whose basis a transcendental reduction is possible and is motivated by itself. It is to ask the question about the unity of the world from which transcendental freedom releases itself, in order to make the origin of this unity appear.

"Must not structure have a genesis, and must not the origin, the point of genesis, be already structured, in order to be the genesis of something?"

Jacques Derrida, "'Genesis' and 'Structure' and Phenomenology,"