Ontologically, however, a photograph is never a finished product of whomever has been established as its owner and wishes to impose sovereign control over it.Whatever is inscribed in the photograph always exceeds what its owner wished to put in it. In other words, the photograph is not a document belonging to a photographer, to a ruling power, or to any governmental or nongovernmental body. Its identification as any of these things undermines its civil potential. Instead, it is open at all times to additional participants who will not only interpret what is seeing in it as a given, but will also reshape the seen that is to be read.
The photograph, then, is a very special kind of document. Even when it bears its creator’s unique “handwriting,” it is always drawn out of the relationship within which and from which it is produced. Furthermore, it is equally so, whether we talk about the relationship within which it was produced—between photographers, the photographed, and others who took direct or indirect part in its design—or about the relationship in which it is viewed at present, in which the viewers, too, take part in its constitution as a document.
The photograph is a shared political document, but not one agreed upon by the various sides involved in its production and seeking to influence—sometimes in opposite ways—what is shown in it. While a ruling power can use photography among other means of shaping its public image, what is inscribed in a photograph is never merely what the ruling power wishes to inscribe in it or the way in which that power aspires to represent the regime in which it is elected to rule. On the contrary, the photograph is a preferred place in which to read the image of the regime not as it is represented on the paper that defines its institutions and their interrelations, but in the forms of relations layered between governmental power and the governed, including not only those who took part in the act of photography, but also those who take part in the act of viewing.
Understanding a photograph from a disaster area as a document bearing the seal of the regime, one comprehends the limited nature of common categories such as “compassion,” “pity,” “empathy,” “rage,” “concern,” “empowerment,” and “victimization,” which in fact describe only a single axis of relations between the photographer and the photographed while erasing all other relationships that were inscribed in the photograph