Between is Nothing alludes to the Truth from the boundary/border between image and thought, more specifically, from the interplay between two photographs which is sometimes mediated by a short text. Each work suggests an inside/outside opposition, both of the text and of the image.

The texts help us to create a story, to establish a cause-effect association between two photographs. They make the choice of photographic subjects explicit and, as a parody of photographic conventions, also include a quotation from those who posed for the pictures. Seeking to inscribe a subjective point of view in the "objective reality", I asked the emigré to write about distance (1), the boxer to define himself as such (2), and the heart surgeon to reflect on the heart. However, images have the "last word" (within them). And in that space meanings are manifold, words do not rule and the present cannot be "fixed" as a limit/border between past and future. Everything seems to be pervaded by the eternal return of the same.

Photography makes present, denying the possibility of becoming. It creates a pure present, revealing the magic quality of the time associated with images. The photographic subject is cut off from the world, pitted against its own nature. Is this not the way in which the photographic image operates -breaking connections, suspending the lineal time of narration?

I am interested in the way photography searches for the truth. Perhaps this is the reason why on many occasions my intuition has led me to doubt the truth conferred on the object by the power of representation granted to photography. I believe it is naive to claim that there is a given, "objective reality", and so it is to think that there is a unified/self-centered subject which/who can encompass and shape reality alone.

Would it not be more adequate to think of multiple subjects integrated into reality, shaped in turn by the way in which the subjects see it?

I suspect that my uncertainties are related to the ungraspable nature of time. In any case, I have decided to accept that truth and error are made of the same "substance".
How can we recover "the concrete" through photography today? Between is Nothing includes diptychs where a "synthesised" picture is created out of a "direct" one. For example, the colour of someone's lip -which in a different space could be associated with words- has been used to create a pink shot complementing a portrait. Photography makes it possible to present a before and an after simultaneously, and allows for the connection of diverse spaces.

Images today -including the ones we have of ourselves and of the world- can be easily modified, as it is the case in most fields of production. But it seems as if there was (were) no subject(s) capable of making this long-awaited change. Perhaps, as Czech essayist Vilém Flusser claims, the screens (photography, cinema, television and computer screens) we have devised to access the world have become veils which block our vision of what is "out there".

Could there be another way of thinking of time and space, of thinking in and out of time? Could photography serve as a model which would help us develop an understanding of the present, of what is coming?

res