“At the beginning of an exhibition, it is common to hire an art photographer to capture in two-dimensional images the layout of a group of works in the space. This act not only records the relationships between the pieces, but also the interaction of visitors with them. The viewers, immersed in the physical environment, sometimes become actors that we observe from a distant perspective, representing the act of looking for an invisible audience that does not always see itself observing.

_

We start from the premise that the photographer acts with rigor, honesty and an intention of objectivity. We trust that they will not distort the given scene. By observing the photographs in an exhibition, we tacitly accept their vision and the technology they employ as a reliable bridge that transports us to that distant space. The result of a day of silent work in an exhibition space —the images that quickly circulate through social networks— undergoes a kind of transubstantiation: the visual material becomes, for many, the exhibition itself.

Although exhibitions and their photographs are not the same thing, it is common practice to consider them interchangeable [1]. From a romantic view of art, these images could be considered a poor substitute for the physical experience of visiting the exhibition; an experience that is perceived as essential as long as one has the resources of time and money to do so. Instead, for most of us, this visual substitution has become normalized; it enables us to access more exhibitions than our physical, material and temporal circumstances would allow us to visit in person. The immediate availability of these images and the possibility of their quick spread have accelerated the cycle of production and reception of art, favoring their instantaneous circulation across geographic and cultural boundaries.

However, this perspective could suggest an unidirectional conception of the relationship between exhibitions and their images. In our digitized world, images can be anticipated or even created simultaneously with the exhibition itself; they are not simply a secondary record. This opens up plastic possibilities and invites us to explore new creative paths. It also raises the question of what these images reveal to us in themselves, beyond their derivative character of another artistic fact: can we detect in them a way of thinking and looking that is proper to their creator, beyond the intended objectivity?