phocographs "Mayday, 1959" in Moscow, he tcaches me how Russians dress (which after all I don’t know): I notę a boy’s big cloth cap, anothcr's necktic, an old womans scarf around her head, a youth’s haircur, etc. I can cnter still furthcr inco such derails, observing rhat many of thc men photographcd by Nadar have long fin-gernaiis: an cthnographical question: how long wcrc nails worn in a certain period? Photography can tell me rhis much betcer chan painted portraics. Ir allows me co accede to an infra-knowlcdge; it supplies me with a collccrion of parciał objccrs and can flatrer a ccrtain fetishism of minc: for rhis "me" which likcs knowledge, which nourishes a kind of amorous preference for it. In thc same way, 1 likc certain biographical features which, in a writers lifc, dc-light me as much as certain phocographs; I have called thcsc feacurcs "biographemes"; Photography has che same rclation to History that thc biographcme has to biography.
The first man who saw thc first photograph (if we excepr Niepce, who madc it) must havc thoughc it was a painting: same framing,
» ^ _ _ | | J | •_
contestations, into thc absolute. patcrnal Refercncc, as if
it were Horn from rhe Canvas (this is truć, technically, bat only in part; for the painters’ camera obscura is only one of rhe causes of Photography; thc cssenrial one, pcrhaps, was thc Chemical discovery). At rhis point in my invcsti-gation, nothing cidetically distinguishes a photograph, howcver realistic, from a painting. "Pictorialism" is only an cxaggeration of wliat thc Photograph thinks of itsclf.
Yet it is not (it seems to mc) by Painting that Photography touchcs arr, but by Theatcr. Niepcc and Dagucrre arc always put ar the origin of Photography (evcn if the iatter has somewhat usurped the formcr‘s place); now Dagucrre, when hc took over Nicpce's invention, was running a panorama theatcr animated by light shows and movcments in the Place du Chateau. The camera obscura, in short, has generated at one and the same time perspec-tive painting, photography, and the diorama, which are all thrcc atts of the stage; but if Photography seems to mc closer to the Theatcr, it is by way of a singular intermedi-ary (and perhaps I am the only one who secs ic): by way of Dcath. We know the original relarion of the theater and. rhe cult of the Dead: the first actors scparated themscbes1 from the communicy by playing the role of the Dead:, to make oneself up was to designarc onc-sclf as a bodyj simultaneously living and dead: thc whitencd bust of the-totemie theater, thc man with the painted face in the Chinese theater, thc rice-paste makcup of the Indian Katha-Kali, the Japancse No mask . . . Now it is this same rela-tion w'hich I find in the Photograph; however "lifclike” we $trivc to make it (and this frenzy to be lifelike can only be
I