1. the relationship between the image and reality is a relationship of overseeing. We oversee the fact - that everyone knows - that the image cannot represent reality. We behave as if we could mistake the image for reality.

2. This oversight is a mistake or a slip. It is a mistake that needs to happen over and over again. When we oversee we see something else. A chance encounter that reveals something different, unexpectedly. Documentary has to fail in order to become -- and one needs to be aware of this all the time. It won't be at the right moment, or in real time: it will be too early or too late.

3. Documentary provides reality. It is pro-vision: a vision on behalf or instead of it, it performs a reality that it is confronting. It is supplying it with different aspects, furnishing it with something new, accentuating it by alienating it from itself. It is always about looking beyond the given set of assets that may constitute a reality, seeing

4. In doing so it poses the question of ownership. What is at stake is the question of power: what does it mean to own an image? Who has the
power and the means to exercise ownership?

5. Documentary asks the question: who owns seeing? Who does seeing belong to? And how does the image transform — even just quantitatively — the reality latent in a period time?

6. Rather than a proper notion of private property that is supposed to result in responsibility, that sets out to fix reality, it renders reality as something that may be appropriated, but ultimately cannot be owned. A landscape, a mask, something that exists outside of the frame.

7. Documentary must search for false time instead of real time: too early or too late, but never at the appropriate moment to capture an image and
take possession of it. This inevitable failure, which goes hand in hand with a false time, allows for insights that could never have been calculated or predicted. We can glimpse the underlying codes — human readable, not machine-readable — of networked reality. In doing so, we recognize the idiosyncrasies of images that cannot be possessed, are no one’s property, and therefore will be different every time they are viewed.

8. Reality must be defended. But merely capturing it isn't enough; instead, it must be broken free and become fugitive. But what could this mean? Where could documentary flee to? Ultimately, this cannot be a polite question about the “appropriate use” of technology but, rather, the opposite: How can we use technologies for things very different than their intended purposes?