POP 4 (1) pp.

13–23 Intellect Limited 2013

Philosophy of Photography
Volume 4 Number 1
© 2013 Intellect Ltd Photoworks. English language. doi: 10.1386/pop.4.1.13_7

Ariella Azoulay and Aïm Deüelle Lüski

Threshold as place: Ariella Azoulay

talks with Aïm Deüelle Lüski1

1. The text published here Ariella Azoulay (A.A.): I would like to open our conversation by speaking of light. Your cameras
is an edited version of
a conversation between
turn light into matter and make us re-think photography not as writing in light, but rather as a
Ariella Azoualy and movement in time and space that is not limited a priori to a legible image.
Aïm Deüelle Luski
that took place in the Aïm Deüelle Lüski (A.D.L.): Through making cameras I ask what is this interim space, the simu-
summer of 2012. lacra par excellence that is created by the fact that we place the front of the lens in an open space,
and capture some of the light that is diffused without any order by means of a mechanical device
that reduces the space and focuses the energy into one spot. The key concept here is ‘threshold’.
Photography that has not yet devoted time to actions and events taking place at the threshold has
not opened this question nor extended this moment. I want to extend this time and to think about
it, not necessarily through the image as an end. I suspend light before it is caught in the shape of a
picture, or an image, that would be the end and summary of the process and turn it into an essence.
It is not the image that matters in my photography, but rather the attempt to think about this signif-
icant moment, as a metonym of the world.

13
Ariella Azoulay | Aïm Deüelle Lüski

A.A.: You are in fact turning the threshold into a place?

A.D.L.: The width of the threshold-opening determines both the size of the final image and the
duration of the image presence in the interim stage. Just as a point is part of a line, so the aperture
in horizontal photography is not a hole such as in the pinhole camera but rather a part of a tube – a
section. The wider the hole gets as it becomes tubular, all the more ‘slowly’ the image will move
until eventually it might be trapped inside, so that the light entering one end of the tube’s rim,
outside, would not exit the other side, the inside, but rather distribute the measure of warmth it has
carried inside the dwelling space, and no picture will result from this encounter. The tube measures the
amount of light with its body, and the fascinating question arises – where is the image? Where did
the image which the rays bore as they penetrated the camera obscura disappear? Compared to the
absolute and sweeping principle of the vertical method of photography, in the horizontal one I claim
that not every photograph must result in a picture. This principle contradicts the absolute purpose-
fulness of vertical photography that aspires not to ‘miss’ a single picture. If we relate to the history
of the camera, we shall see that this principle is one of the main theoretical-practical foundations of
the technological path. Namely, a leading line that constitutes a central factor in the development
and honing of photography’s tools and aids.
Think of the investment in instruments that measure light, that calibrate colour – the digital
camera industry is based on improving the colour decoder, the most expensive component of digital
systems, responsible for translating the amount of light and its quality into a picture without it losing
information. These are tools that do not enable any possibility of failure, and emphasize the silence
of the image to such an extent that they have managed to make photography disappear altogether.
The picture that colour decoders produce is ‘successful’ to such an extent that it is no longer related
to optic and perceptual realities, and it transfers the relations photography-picture-representation to
spaces that are distant from production, a distance beyond reality, creating a world of sub-molecular
and sub-visual information.

A.A.: Alternative histories of photography that try to contest the late 1830s as the moment of its
birth do reconstruct various moments in history in which people created and experimented with
camera obscura as a place where the image appears ‘of itself’. The continuity between photography
and the camera obscura is limited and misleading, but it is interesting for it enables the distortion of
the Eurocentric genealogy of the history of photography, and introduces the study of nature’s poten-
tial ‘pencil’ which existed in India and in the Arab world in earlier times. Your own cameras project,
at least in its first years, could join this tradition.
A.D.L.: As early as the late tenth century, Muslim philosopher and scientist Ibn Al Hasan Ibn Al
Haytham (965–1040) conceptualized the conditions that establish the existence of visual perception

14
 Threshold as place

2. During my studies at in general, and formulated the idea that the eyes need to be healthy so they shall be able to concen-
the École Nationale
Superiure des
trate on the visible object in particular. Arab optics in the Middle Ages tried to understand how the
Beaux-Arts (ENSBA), outer world becomes an image in the inner world. Hence, the world is a mediating space, and
I specialized in the lens-eye perceiving it must be neutral and ‘healthy’. The eye’s health is important as a constitu-
sculpture with Etienne
Martin and painting tive value in order not to divert the importance and significance of the world itself from itself, and of
with Pierre Carron. our ability to experience it as it is towards the mediating tool that now stands at the heart of modern
and western science – not just in optics and photography but nearly in anything. Think of the cellu-
lar phone – its purpose was to connect people situated far from each other, and instead it has turned
itself into the main point of attention. Most of its functions are no longer connected with the primal-
humanistic purpose for which it was created. It has turned itself into an ‘issue’. The device has taken
over thought and man’s authentic ability to live in the world as a guest and not as an occupier. Eye
health enables neutral, natural functionality that is a part of the view and a part of the viewer, similar
to the idea of tools or of money prior to Marx, whereas the modern tool is associated with industri-
alization, capitalism and structures that belong to the societies and super-structures of exploitative
industry. In Islamic thought, the transparent front and mediation do no exist as such and have no
added value, only interim value. The tool’s purpose is to serve the community and not the economic
super-machine that produces and develops it. It exists but without an essence that is disruptive or
excessive, and can thus stand at the ‘front’ of the showing event without disturbing the content that
comes across through it.

A.A.: In our talks you were reserved about associating your project with pinhole cameras. Could you
clarify your reason for this?
A.D.L.: I began to photograph relatively late, at the age of 24, and from its onset photography for me
rather meant work in a darkroom with photograms and light, namely photography without a camera.
Therefore, biographically I made no distinction between photography and pinhole photography.
I belong to a generation or tradition – if one could even call a critical position ‘tradition’ – of artists
who refuse to accept the Eurocentric hegemony of the form of representation that has been fixated in
photography as we know it and take it for granted. Still, in the late 1970s, when I was studying at the
art academy, nothing was taught about photography. At the time, it was not yet an accepted art prac-
tice as it is nowadays. During my art studies in Paris there were no photography departments yet, and
my thoughts about photography began more as sculpture work, constructing multiplicity relations in
space. I worked a lot with architecture students who did have photography laboratories, and an inter-
esting connection formed between my own project and architecture. The work mode of my cameras
with space and time is in dialogue, as well, with traditional sculpture and painting. It is an attempt to
understand photography not as a mechanistic action but as a process that resembles building in
sculpture and layering in painting.2 Everything I then knew in photography was ‘Europe’, and

15
Ariella Azoulay | Aïm Deüelle Lüski

I accumulated this knowledge from reading books on the history of photography, it was not yet an
object of art history research. It was perceived rather as travelogue material, documentary photography,
photo-journalism, or ‘artistic photography’ even if by way of comparison and distinction from photog-
raphy in general terms (see Sharf (1983[1968]). In the mid-1980s, in the context of photography we
began to read thinkers such as Benjamin, Flusser and Barthes. I then began to understand the post-
phenomenological possibilities, the ability to rethink space and time while criticizing their cultural
dimensions. I understand that aesthetics are a part of political, ideological and metaphysical power
struggles, and in fact part of the phenomenological experience of meeting reality.

A.A.: Would it be right to say that the question of the origin of the image interests you less than the
conditions enabling or preventing its appearance?

A.D.L.: The main question for me is to try and understand what happens to the image when there
is no human consciousness behind it to perceive the picture. My cameras are a part of the effort to
understand how the event of an image comes about, an event that is basically a matter of transmis-
sion, a transfer of power and of light that gives itself through a picture. Or perhaps vice versa – a
picture that uses light as a skeleton which it will abandon in order to transmit a message that the eye
perceives/creates. My aim is to try and understand pictorial representation as an inclusive idea
beyond the Descartes-Kant-Husserl-Merleau-Ponty axis. This axis of thinkers’ established a narrow
understanding of the ontological event of the picture. Unlike modern thought that focuses the world
in human perception and consciousness, namely in the position of the ruling power of thought and
conception, my research deals with the question: how did the picture develop in the world? What is
the ontology of the image before and after our eye perceived the world as a coherent ‘picture’ which
the mind knows how to decipher as a verbal whole, as text, and as an identified structure trapped in
processes of culture and possession. I began to examine the possibilities that exist in photography,
investigate these issues, and from there proceeded to develop and formulate the horizontal philoso-
phy of photography.

A.A.: Horizontal photography was born of understanding the post-phenomenological options?

A.D.L.: Multiplicity is precisely that which existing philosophical language has difficulties describing
or explaining, and ever since Descartes, through Kant, it tends to unite sense experience as a
universal phenomenology that is very foreign to Eastern thought. The question that interested me
was first of all theoretical, as a result from understanding that there is no ‘neutral’ photography, that
every picture belongs to a certain politics of representation, and that the camera and its use cannot
be ‘neutral’ and transparent to representation.

16
 Threshold as place

A.A.: Could you reformulate these theoretical questions with regard to the body of the camera?
A.D.L.: There is a simple question that had never been asked until the moment we began to under-
stand the tool ideologically and politically – what is the front of the camera? Or why is the front of
the camera built the way it is as regards the relation it creates between the photographer and the
photographed? What is the nature of this spatial-phallic device that connects the camera obscura to
the world? What is the space that is created in between – a space of mediation transmitting light
through several lenses that do what the user will with it? And how does this mediating structure
create a radical dispositive relating to the human eye that is the conceptual basis for the lens and its
optical structure, or relating to alternative mediating structures that also stand in front such as the
ear, the nose, and even the skin of one’s body? Continuing the philosophy of organic difference that
Deleuze formulates, horizontal thought says we must place our consciousness instead of the dead
device – at a point where light is attracted and concentrates at the threshold between the camera
obscura and the world, sense and feel the movement and warmth of light and the moment of the
image’s coming into being. Out of the perception of difference we could ask Photography again –
whether utopian space has been created in photography as modern history wished to think it, or a
heterotopic space as made present by horizontal thought? In the cameras I invent, I do not take for
granted the structure of the lens or its location, nor the immediate, single direction at which it is
aimed, but rather organize and fix these anew each time in relation to the photographed subject.
I  examine the ideology innate to this location and examine the shape and various materials from
which the camera has been built and developed since the mid-1800s.

A.A.: Could you generalize and say that your cameras seek the conditions of fault in which vision
would not be completely enslaved by purpose?
A.D.L.: Yes, this is definitely what my cameras seek, expressions of chaos and disorder, the failure
of organized combinatory-ness, that which Nietzsche and Deleuze call the game of dice, or coinci-
dence. Hence I deal with the question – what can be seen when vision is impaired, not in opposition
to healthy vision but rather as a part of the understanding that chaos, lack of order and loss of
reductive combinatory-ness are a part of the examined reality, not an event whose investigation
should be avoided the way the hegemonic camera does. The effort was in obtaining unimpaired
vision that requires ‘concentration’. Concentration is considered a must for modern man, and is not
fundamental for whoever wishes to forfeit the ‘possession’ of technology and its ‘achievements’ –
for the sake of what you define as conditions of civil sharing. Unlike the commonplace recoil from
‘distractedness’, I see the possibility of ‘distracted concentration’ as one of man’s important, funda-
mental abilities. The philosophers and scientists of the Middle Ages studied light as matter and the
birth of the image and its state in the field of our natural experience not necessarily as a basis for

17
Ariella Azoulay | Aïm Deüelle Lüski

order and rational thought. This is contrary to Kant, who attributed to healthy vision a role in under- 3. See Flusser
(2000[1983]). See also
standing experience. As part of the conditions enabling rational thought to know what is natural for from quite a different
it as it were, to connect to the gaze that is innate to us a priori at any sensation of object and leads, angle: Batchen (1997,
he says, to recognize the limits of sense experience as a universal idea (see Kant 1997 [1781]). I real- 2001).
ized that photography, as I wish to conceptualize it, does not originate in the west at all, but rather
in the east, where we are, in fact. And that we must transcend the narrow, vertical, reductive use of
thought that the western scientists left us in their writings. I re-discovered these thinkers and began
to read over the shoulder of Descartes and Kant, and through them – and adding Foucault –
I managed to begin thinking of the possibility of alternative histories. The development of photogra-
phy in Europe was that of photography’s traditional tool towards possessing the image and turning
it into a fetish, a ware, unlike the horizontal use I propose which does not necessarily enable the
simple fetishization of the image. The image in the horizontal camera is not seductive and does not
produce typicality or clarity about the world. In this manner I differentiate myself from the critique
of technology by modernist thinkers such as Freud, Heidegger or Sartre, and from the way they
describe what ‘it does’ to man by concepts such as the unheimlich and the alienated. The alienation
and unheimlichkeit they created in their thought and in our relation to and with the tools do not
necessarily take place. Following Deleuze and Simondon, I realized that postmodern man is not
necessarily haunted by technè, and can very well think through tools and devices. The relation
I formulate regarding the device is not trapped in the experience that phenomenology defined in the
philosophy of Husserl and Heidegger in the first quarter of the twentieth-century. In his ground-
breaking work in the 1980s, Vilém Flusser managed to connect these two traditions – the
Heideggerian that thinks about the act of art as primal creation, and the technological in its non-
dominating, non-alienating dimension.3

A.A.: The different conception of the space of photography gets a clear visual expression in the
cameras, at least when one peers into them and notices the trajectories you lay for light, or the
multiplicity of holes and partitions. How or where is the different idea of time expressed?
A.D.L.: Barthes argued that ‘what the photograph reproduces to infinity has occurred only once: the
photograph mechanically repeats what could never be repeated existentially’ (see Barthes 1997). He
thought of photography as a mechanical movement because he sees the camera as a tool that is
essentially a cutting of time, cutting a single picture out of the phenomenal continuum and extract-
ing it from the world in which it existed. He does not ask, however, what is in fact done here
mechanically? This error which became widespread was my point of departure. Photography is not
a mechanical process and does not freeze – reflect or retain – a single picture. Photography exists in
duplicity. It is also a part of a continuum that has been halted by producing a certain momentary

18
 Threshold as place

4. See http://www. representation, thereby dividing the continuum into ‘before’ and ‘after’, while it is also the contin-
youtube.com/
watch?v=m
uum itself. In both cases, as Barthes claimed, photography is simultaneously indexical and realistic.
KviAvT_5iQ. In my cameras there is no break in the continuum, and no such clear cut division into before and
after. There is an organic structure of relations between the movement of representation of the
representation and between the space and time surrounding it. Therefore, my photography does not
stand vis-à-vis the world. It is in the middle, not pricking or wounding the being as Barthes describes
this. I believe that here too I might say this idea is very close to your own about the difference
between what you define as a sovereign revolution, The Revolution and civil revolution,4 where, too,
the continuum is not broken, and at the same time there is insistence on the way in which revolu-
tion is not the single exception, but rather the continuous and constant. Building your archive, you
cope with the problem that vertical photography posed for potential history. You deal with that
which in literary theory is called filling-in gaps and in every picture points out the invisible, that
which has been cut out of the picture or, alternately, that which the picture cuts out of the context in
which it was taken. In other words, the reference which a picture makes in its mere existence to its
political, economic and human exterior, and thus, gaps are filled in which you wish to produce
shared civil experience. My photography does not deconstruct the world into a mechanical image of
itself, and the picture my cameras produce is not one of halting time. Therefore the theory of
filling-in the gaps is less relevant regarding the resulting image. It is photography existing in a kind
of ‘meanwhile’ and remaining indexically close to it. Index here is not a linear sign but rather photog-
raphy itself which, as you analyse it in your own lectures, is the presentation and conceptualization
of the event, namely the birth of a singular-heterotopic space.

A.A.: Benjamin criticized the recoil from distraction, and turned distraction into a central category in
a new phenomenology of viewing that he developed. What distinguishes your thought about
distraction, and if we are to tie the threads offered so far, are you saying that the failure of modernity
lies in shifting the ‘health’ of vision to the instrument, away from the eye as it was formulated by
Haytham?

A.D.L.: Instead of enabling the existence of threshold spaces of de-territorialization, the optic lens
based on Descartes’ researches takes reality in and ‘healthily’ concentrates it inside the chamber of the
camera. Targeted vision is important for the hunter/fighter, and less important for the farmer or gath-
erer from whom we ourselves evolved. In his book The History of Religion, Georges Bataille develops
the discussion of the eye and places it at the center of sense experience, disrupting the body’s proper
function. I proceed from that place of eye as a possible axis of disruption and distraction. The optical
lens, placed at the front of the camera, was meant to obtain maximal ‘health’ and endless concentra-
tion in that border space created by it between the camera obscura and reality. The lens serves the

19
Ariella Azoulay | Aïm Deüelle Lüski

techno-military industries that feed hegemonic photography. The link between photography and the 5. On Kant’s critique
of correlation see
computer would not take place this way without the ‘health’ obsession and the concentration of Meillassoux (2006).
the  modern lens that, nowadays, manages to photograph a reality distant from the place that the
6. See Kant’s early
human eye is capable of perceiving. The horizontal photography project thinks of imagination – in the article that deals with
Kantian sense, as a basis not only for the seen but also for illness and spiritual-messianic excess, as a what we can call ‘the
structure active within sense reality and not only as a ‘preparatory’ structure, as Kant thought. Kant photographic look’
(2007).
argued that we imagine because we cannot conceive of things in themselves in every direction and at
any time, namely, our imagination supplements our experience. Kant places the front as a basis for
critical thought: what stands at the front of cognition/consciousness, what stands at the front of the
senses, what is the last surface, the touch interface between myself and the world? As he explained it,
our senses limit our vision and enable us to see only the front of things and no more – so that which is
not conceivable by critical thought is not thinkable (Barthes 1997: 273–74). The horizontal photogra-
phy that I developed seeks precisely this experience, the spaces of understanding that are not neces-
sarily present in their accessibility to the senses, since they are synthetic, cultural, economic spaces of
memory. For Kant, imagination lies at the basis of schematization and helps man map and organize
reality. We use imagination every time we intuitively recognize a multiplicity of phenomena according
to the basic concepts that construct experience as united in time. Imagination is not that wild and
exciting world of current thought, but rather that something in reality that enables access to thought,
and a functioning critical capacity. Contrary to Kant correlating imagination and conception, I create
cameras that may be characterized as ‘non-correlative’ because one cannot know in advance how the
picture will look, how what I call the ‘struggle’ inside the camera obscura and upon the emulsion
surface in the negative will take place. All of this is a result of the fact that the front is neither uniform
nor symmetrical but presents a multiplicity of events, and the way they are absorbed on a supporting
surface that is not necessarily symmetrical.5 The front built in my cameras does not assume organiza-
tion or knowledge, but rather chance, arbitrariness, constant suspicion and doubt.6

A.A.: At some point, post-phenomenological insights linked up with political critique. Would you
describe that moment?

A.D.L.: In the early 1990s, upon your return from Paris, when we met around Bograshov Gallery,
I began to experience the synthesis of everything I learned from Foucault and Deleuze in the 1970s
and what I managed to understand by myself in my own artwork. My intuitions needed a supportive
environment that was not there until you introduced photography into the public-political agenda,
and the importance of post-structural thought became recognized. In the context of changes taking
place at the time in the complex reality of our life both in Israel and worldwide, it was no longer
possible to go on separating our political activity as radical ‘left’ and our activity in art. Through

20
 Threshold as place

exhibitions you curated at Bograshov Gallery I began to realize to what extent the cameras project is
political in essence rather than merely philosophical-critical.

A.A.: You use several characterizations in order to describe the hegemonic thought or ideas which
you oppose. At the same time you also formulate new concepts for your cameras project, which
enable us to think of it aside from its object of critique. I would like to dwell on two pairs of concepts
and ask you about their interrelations. The most basic opposition is between vertical and horizontal
thought. This opposition stretches from the placing of the negative inside the camera obscura to the
position of the spectator in relation to the world. Another opposition is the one you just presented
between the correlative idea you identify with Kant and your own conception that may be termed
disruptive. Their correspondence is not complete – vertical thought is based on correlation, but just
as you showed in some of your cameras, horizontal thought is not the only form of disruption. The
term organic, too, which you use regarding your cameras, is not necessarily derived from horizontal
thought, and I wonder whether it too exists as a part of such a contrasting pair.

A.D.L.: Organic thought refers to the structure of a ‘transitional’ space. It enables one to expose the
aesthetic and economic theory that is behind the turning of the lens into one of the important and
centralist structures in the practice of photography as a whole, and naturally that which constitutes
one of the foundations of the raison d’être of the camera industry. From World War One until the
present, this industry has proceeded on par with the arms industry, ruling violence that functions
through the way in which the lens is produced, applied, aimed and acting in the world as an agent
of Big Brother and his metastases, from the ground up to the sky, and from there out into the
cosmos where, too, lenses act as a part of occupying and possessing space. Think of Google Earth
and the way in which at any given moment dozens of telescopic lenses are pointing at any one of us
and documenting every move and act of our in public space that has been confiscated from the
citizen. Artists such as Trevor Paglen or Miki Kratsman expose this very well in the way they use
the media.
The lenses I build in every camera relate every time to the being of that which is made visible,
and the materials from which the camera is made. I mean not merely the size of the pinhole but
especially the form of its rim, the margins, the material and thickness of the hole, where the charac-
ter of the image and its sensual nature is established. The light rays entering this aperture are
‘marked’ and a duration is established during which light that has not yet become an image will
dwell inside the mediating space before proceeding further into the camera obscura. Even if this is
not yet measurable in a precise way, suspending the pre-image-light in the inner transitional space
even ‘before’ it is born preserves it for a miniscule unit of time in a space of potentiality where it is
captured for another moment before materializing in a body and form. This, in fact, is the space that

21
Ariella Azoulay | Aïm Deüelle Lüski

fascinates me, for the image as matter is not yet present there, and reality as material of which the
image is taken is no longer where it had been. Actually, what is created here is the lack of place of
potentiality which strongly corresponds with your own idea of creating spaces of potential history
inside a shared past. Just as electricity is present everywhere and nowhere at the same time for it is
not matter but the transition of matter, so too, in photography and even more typically so since the
energy penetrating the space of the aperture/hole will eventually turn itself into a picture. But at the
aperture it is close to what I exhibited in my personal show in Tel Aviv – The Principle of the Least
Action – on the one hand close to the absolute zero, and on the other it will finally be created as an
image, but one that is born of empty space.

A.A.: We have spoken at length about space and conception but have hardly touched upon the
question of time, and the conventional way in which time was addressed in hegemonic photography.
In my book Civil Imagination (2012) I proposed to rethink the event of photography not as some-
thing that takes place only through the mediation of the camera, in that mythological ‘instant’ to
which hegemonic discourse used to reduce the process of photography, but rather as an event that
also takes place when the camera is present and not active, and when the spectator meets the image.
I suggested deconstructing the spectator’s externality to the event of photography, and the event’s
reduction to the technological instant. This move of mine results from the effort to criticize the idea
of sovereignty that reduces the space of civil existence enabled by photography, and I believe it
meets your own move, beginning with the deconstruction of each of photography’s physical
components.

A.D.L.: I continue your suggestion that photography does not begin and end with the camera’s
most purposeful act – taking a photo, but exists before the camera has photographed. By force of the
mere presence of cameras in the world photography exists and everything is photographed. But
I claim more than that – photography is a basic human trait that has always existed, and only in the
nineteenth-century was the instrument built to replace this fundamental characteristic and produce
physical pictures that can be reproduced, just as Flusser describes the historic transitions and
the connection of the human body to instruments. Reducing the event to the technological instant is
indeed the main characteristic of hegemonic photography, and many photographers do wonders in
circumventing the limitations it poses to them, whether ironically or by other forms they frequently
invent. Some photographers manage to tell us something beyond technè’s vertical, reductive
constraints, and thus succeed time and again in refuting Heidegger. Modern sovereignty follows
instruments and tools, apparently, and not the other way around. It takes over everything that is
‘photographable’, able to be turned into a picture, given to documentation and surveillance. Here
perhaps is the root of the evil which we wish to expose in various ways. Following you, I show that

22
 Threshold as place

inter-subjective space is far broader and more complex than the space constructed by using the
vertical camera, a space that the sovereign will never be able to qualify, possess, dominate or limit.
I produce cameras that de-territorialize any attempt to limit human space in a way that manifests
your vision of civil imagination. My camera presents this civil imagination as a real possibility for
producing different conceptions of time and space, not given to domination and possession, subvert-
ing order wherever it is seen.

References
Barthes, Roland (1997), La chambre Claire, Note sur la photographie / Camera Lucida, Paris: Gallimard,
Seuil, p. 15.
Batchen, Geoffrey (1997), Burning with Desire: The Conception of Photography, Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
—— (2001), Each Wild Idea, Writing, Photography, History, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Flusser, Vilém (2000 [1983]), Towards A Philosophy of Photography, London: Reaktion Books.
Kant, Immanuel (1997 [1781]), Critique of Pure Reason (trans. by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood),
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 157–59.
—— (2007), ‘Concerning the Ultimate Ground of the Differentiation of Directions in Space [1763]’,
in David Walford and Ralf Meerbote (eds), The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant,
Theoretical Philosophy, 1755–1770, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 361–417.
Meillassoux, Quentin (2006), Apres la finitude, Essai sur la necessite de la contingence,/After Finitude,
Paris: Seuil.
Sharf, Aaron (1983[1968]), ‘Photography as art: Art as photography’, in Art and Photography, London:
Penguin Books, pp. 233–48.

Ariella Azoulay and Aïm Deüelle Lüski have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work in the format that was submitted to
Intellect Ltd.

23
 BgmjfYdg^;mjYlgjaYdKlm\a]k
AKKF2*(,--%0+.tGfdaf]AKKF2*(,-%-0,,
+akkm]kh]jngdme]tNgdme])$*()*

9aekYf\K[gh]
L`]BgmjfYdg^;mjYlgjaYdKlm\a]kakYfafl]jfYlagfYd$h]]j%j]na]o]\hmZda[Ylagfl`Yl]phdgj]kl`][mdlmjYd^mf[lagf%
af_g^[mjYlaf_Yf\alkj]dYlagflg]p`aZalagfk$afklalmlagfk$Ym\a]f[]k$Y]kl`]la[kYf\\akhdYq[mdlmj]&9kY[jala[Yd
Yf\j]khgfkan]^gjme^gj\]ZYl]afl`]]e]j_af_^a]d\g^[mjYlgjaYdklm\a]k$l`]bgmjfYdoadd^gkl]jk[`gdYjk`ahaf
l`]l`]gjq$hjY[la[]Yf\`aklgjqg^[mjYlaf_$Yko]ddYkl`Ylg^]p`aZalagfkYf\\akhdYq[mdlmj]af_]f]jYd&
=\algjk
Bae<jgZfa[c
GflYjag;gdd]_]g^9jl<]ka_f ;Ydd^gjHYh]jk
bae8\akhdYq[mdl&[ge
L`]BgmjfYdg^;mjYlgjaYdKlm\a]kk]]ckgja_afYdj]k]Yj[`Yjla[d]kgfl`]kmZb][lg^[mjYlaf_Yf\]p`aZalagfk$Yko]dd
B]ffa^]j>ak`]j Yk[Yk]klm\a]k$afl]jna]okYf\j]na]okg^j][]flZggck$]p`aZalagfkYf\[gf^]j]f[]k&
QgjcMfan]jkalq
b]Õk`8qgjcm&[Y

Afl]dd][lakYfaf\]h]f\]flY[Y\]ea[hmZdak`]jg^ZggckYf\bgmjfYdk$lgna]ogmj[YlYdg_m]gjgj\]jgmjlald]knakalooo&afl]dd][lZggck&[ge
gj=%eYad2gj\]jk8afl]dd][lZggck&[ge&Afl]dd][l$L`]Eadd$HYjfYddJgY\$>ak`hgf\k$:jaklgd$MC$:K).+B?&L]d2#,, (!))/1-011)(