Perhaps we would not be able to give a precise definition of it, but we all have some idea of what a concept is. We might even say that our heads are literally full of them. More complicated is explaining how they got in there — whether through the spiritual legacy of some metaphysical entity or as the effect of a tactical exercise of our faculties for experiencing the world.
In any case, it would seem unlikely that they arrived there through photographs — and not only because billions of human beings developed and used their concepts long before Photography was still a fantasy in the minds of the gods. The real obstacle is, so to speak, ontological: photographic images are by their very nature analytical, operating on the individual case, on the particular extracted from its context of reality; concepts, on the other hand, are essentially synthetic entities. We might therefore assume that the relationship between concepts and photographs is the same as the one that binds concepts to the subjects photographed.
Case closed, then? Not necessarily. While it is true that among the hundreds of photographs of roses we may have happened to observe, it is unlikely that any of them ever depicted the concept of a rose, for other types of concepts — and curiously, precisely those referring to abstract entities — things are different. In these cases, if the frame has managed to capture the instant in which reality aligned itself with the concept, Photography’s ability to extract and freeze the moment can not only constitute a reflection on that particular concept, but can also help us form an idea of what a concept is in general, and how it takes root and operates in our minds.
For example, in this image by Antonio Luise, everything speaks to us of time — and does so in a very precise way. Beginning with the chromatic dimension, so close to the renderings of half a century ago, and the eidetic one, with contours so unmistakably analog. In a contemporary photograph — the shot dates from 2025 — these properties establish the plastic plane of an image that reproduces the present in the manner of the past, or rather, since Photography can only reproduce its own present, as a photograph that “imagines” the past — in the sense that it “puts it into image.”
This basic framework is reinforced through the dialectics generated by the topological dimension: the two figures in the foreground are positioned on the right, a region which, by our reading habits, enters into a relationship with the left-hand zone on the plane of expression — a relationship to which, on the plane of content, corresponds the semic category “before/after.”
The figurative level organizes itself against the backdrop prepared by the plastic arrangement, in a configuration that follows and reinforces its semantic references: the left-hand zone is entirely characterized by elements temporally connoted as prior to those placed on the right side — water and earth, the nature of the sea and the culture of the built environment that dominates the visible portion of dry land in the image. The group of people in the water can also be placed in a symbolically temporal relationship with the couple in the foreground; beyond being located in the left section of the frame, they are “distant” in relation to the two elderly figures who are “close,” and further develop in temporal terms of “before/after” the topological opposition of “behind/in front.” But the background figures are also “undressed,” and therefore refer to a “natural” state that precedes the “socialized” one of the “clothed” couple.
If one considers that the two figures in the foreground are looking toward what the image connotes as the past, all of these elements lead us to interpret the photograph as the “present” reflecting upon and confronting the “past.” But the representation does not stop at this somewhat aseptic stage; two further elements infuse this interpretation with an affective quality: the wall on the left, which opposes the flow of time represented by the text of the image, and the “shadow” that envelops the two figures, in contrast to the “light” that floods the greater part of the scene.
The condition of the two elderly figures then appears to be that of a “present without a future,” turned toward the past not only by the gazes of the couple, but also by the diagonals that the shadow draws in the extreme foreground, generating two lines that converge toward the boat — its prow facing the bathers and the open sea, the place of birth and the origin of perceived time. Yet the vessel is empty and motionless, as if blocked and rendered useless as a means of sailing back against the currents of time.
The entire shot thus embodies a coherent visual reflection on the passage of time, on its unstoppable machine that sweeps us along, and on the feeling that this flow — relentless yet destined to cease — arouses in human beings. I do not know, and I do not believe there exists, a decalogue of “conceptual” photography; but should anyone ever wish to compile one, this image by Antonio Luise could be a good starting point — and should certainly not be overlooked.
The photographs and images on this page, in compliance with copyright law, are reproduced for purposes of criticism and discussion pursuant to Articles 65, paragraph 2; 70, paragraph 1-bis; and 101, paragraph 1 of Law 633/1941.
English translation based on Claude.ai translation services.