A ghostly apparition haunts the photographic plate; a spectral hand summoned by invisible and seemingly inexplicable forces. This form comprised of shadows, a tenebrous image of bone and diaphanous flesh, presses gently against a lambent field of ice, glass or mist; it is impossible to tell the exact nature of its ground. As a result, the hand floats in a liminal netherworld, between the “factuality” of science, and an occult realm of shades and spirits. A more insistent pressure of the hand against an unyielding surface would splay the fingers, establishing an palpable physical presence; instead there is a tentative and uncertain quality to the gesture; the fingers roughly parallel, the graceful curve of the index finger, the thumb slightly abducted – as if its owner imprecisely recalled an illustration from a medical text. The translucent glow of the image defies the opaque and impenetrable terrain of bone and muscle, while the dense obscurity of its inner regions appear to absorb light. The irregular pools of darkness and soft edges of this seminal radiograph are more like an ink drawing than a photograph; yet, with its arrival, the authority of drawings and prints are jeopardized, as the X-Ray, as a quasi-photograph, challenges claims to verisimilitude, or the documentary potency of artistic representations.As if to dramatize this contest between the “painterly” and the photographic, dark talismans, the black rings upon one finger, stand out in sharp contrast to the image’s soft contours; their fiercely defined circumferences seem to chastise this transgressive exposure of a forbidden and uncanny territory, by disrupting its flocculent network of values. This contrast between rings and anatomy visibly enforces the tension, resident in all images, between optical phenomenon and cultural signs: Frau Roentgen’s rings, symbolizing a social contract, remind us of the ligature of signs that circumscribe the life images.Our understanding of this image is primarily visual, no text, for instance, intrudes directly upon the image;its parts and divisions are not mapped or labeled for didactic purposes. This vicariously haptic image presents a new means of measuring and recording; a new technology of representation. Signaling both welcome and farewell, it gestures towards the future and the past, indicating a moment in the life of its owner, and a momentary arrest in the history of bodily representation. Once the image is recorded, the flow of time, and an irrevocable change in the order of representation, resumes. Held at a distance by the ambiguity of its gesture as it enforces the boundaries of a new epistemic frontier, we see the clinical, the empirical, and the technological draw together in this gesture, even as the as a parting of art and medicine appears to accelerate. Yet, the traces of artistic content attached to this image demonstrate the core of my argument: there are aspects of human being that the “science” of anatomy cannot represent, these become visible only through the artistic content embedded in the images of anatomical science. These “artistic” elements constitute more than decoration, embellishment, or demonstration; without them, the humanity of the anatomical subject is absent, rendering the content of the image into unrecognizable flesh. I offer a reading of the symbiotic relationship between art and anatomy through the diplomacies of “spirit” and “body” conducted by both art and philosophy. Even as the technology of Roentgen’s X-ray appears to banish the artist’s “hand” from anatomical illustration, the vacuum caused by this banishment is filled by the aesthetic discourse of photography.
Here is a hand “flayed” of its skin without the violence of scalpels or surgical instruments, a seminal event indicating a moment in the discourse of science, and a signature of the relations of “structure, sign, and play”as they shuttle between the visual arts and science. This X-ray of Frau Roentgen’s hand embodies a cognitive territory, whose challenge collapses, then withdraws, the atavistic taboo against viewing the inside of the body.Inscribed upon a photographic plate is the completion of a centuries long ambition: to graphically expose the inner workings of the body without removing the life sustaining cuticle of skin, sinew, nerve, and vein, preserving the body’s precious and ephemeral animation. A new mode of sight appears in this union of the visible with the invisible; as an “invisible” force produces an intensely visual, intrinsically spatial experience of the body’s interior, while the sequential grammar of the scientific method, empirical observation, methodical description, and the deployment of technology supplement its meaning. The hand of its “author” is invisible, obscured by a screen of technology; technicians and their equipment have annexed a territory of artistic representation. Issues of style, or artistic “signature,” replace accuracy, clarity, and mimetic correspondence with “reality.” “Mind,” as discursive agency, disciplines the body through modes of representation, but the X-Ray disrupts this process; mind now risks becoming synonymous with the “enframing”of technology, and the body is subject to an invasive and overtly technological gaze.
It is of some significance that Frau Roentgen saw in this image an adumbration of her own death, and refused to study it, repelled, as might be expected, by the spectacle of her interior physical being.Her rejection of this image is as significant as is its enthusiastic public reception.Beyond the purely occult force of an image of invisible structures, produced by invisible wavelengths, an entire tradition of representations inspires her “irrational” fear; the visual precedent of the skeleton as a semaphore of inevitable mortality prejudiced her reaction to this image of herself. What generates curiosity in the scientist - arouses in her an atavistic fear; the mistrust of images – particularly those that seem to appear from “mystical” or inexplicable regions, that compound their transgression by revealing what could only, until this day, be seen post mortem.Through her revulsion, Madam Roentgen dramatically stages a fundamental problem of medical and artistic representation: however invisible visual and cultural precedents may be, no image is naively experienced, we carry with us the baggage of our culture – the medical image, through its preoccupation with clarity, organization and precision, shares concerns and is influenced by, artistic conventions. Further, the artistic content of anatomical images preserves the humanity of its subject: the “specimen” on the dissection table. Similarly, medical and scientific notions of the physical and mental self-infiltrate artistic conceptions of the figure. The science of anatomy, in the form of this X-Ray, attempts to “decipher” the relationship between surface and depth, structure and form; terms situated within the foundational “scandal” of the mind/body duality and the “impossible dream” of the engineer.The mind/body duality, like the “nature/culture”  dyad, assumes a metaphysical substrate based upon “centering” and “presence” as the key that unlocks the understanding of structure in general.The “self-critical”play of language both interrogates these foundational assumptions, and regulates permissible boundaries of visibility. This X-ray constitutes a visual “staging”of the transition between a regime of thought which “is designed to leave in the domain of the unthinkable the very thing that makes...conceptualization possible...a purity of presence and self-presence in speech.”and“discourse measured by the critical rigor with which [the] relation to the history of metaphysics and to inherited concepts is thought...a critical relation to the language of the...sciences and a critical responsibility of the discourse itself.”
The “body” of knowledge takes many forms, yet it must conform to an elastic, but no less resilient skeletal armature that disciplines the direction and thrust of our intelligence, the depth of our blindness or the clarity of our perceptions.In the case of Frau Roentgen’s hand, an emanation of rays, penetrating or impeded by the density of flesh and bones, fashions luminous bodily evidence of the incorporeal play of meaning.
The skeleton exposed by Roentgen’s mysterious rays, and fixed upon a photographic plate, appeared, it seemed, as a confirmation of the “axiomatic” assumptions of a “transcendental” empiricism:beneath the confusion of the flesh, underlying the transient cuticle of appearances, there is an enduring substrate, a “center,” a “totalization” of knowledge.Roentgen’s X-Ray image seems to offer visual proof of a transcendental and organizing formal structure that persists at the limits of the phenomenal. The physical organization is immanent, in the sense that bones, particularly those of the hand, configure surface form. But any “spiritual” [mis]reading of image involves the external presence of electromagnetic wavelengths, misinterpreted as the “absent presence” of spirit content, revealing a disguised supplement of our physical being, demonstrating an entire territory of phenomena beyond perception, beyond the capabilities of vision except as “ghosts” or traces. Elected to one transient “focus” of this image are electromagnetic waves, which are simultaneously inside and outside the hand, evidenced only through their effect. Even as Roentgen’s image suggests a confirmation of the prevailing scientific episteme, it challenges it,just as it seems to offer confirmation of the traditional mythos of “soul,” its scientific thrust belies such claims: the body revealed in the X-Ray is abricolage of forces, a collection of fragments, an “actualization of shadows”“bracketed”by an existing scientific discourse. Roentgen’s radiograph exposes more than the “hidden” anatomy of the hand – it commences a “laying bare” of the “invisible” (accepted as axiomatic and thus unquestioned) discourse that configures the body as surely as do flesh and bone. As a result, this image acquires a “mythopoetic” dimension necessary to fully accommodate the full range of “play” it inspires:
Thus it is at this point that...bricolage deliberately assumes itsmythopoetic function...this function makes the philosophical or epistemological requirement of a center appear as mythological...as a historical illusion. 
Ironically, despite the invisibility of the “X-Ray,” a visual proof of its existence must appear to establish its being. A new technology of representation emerges to facilitate this ironic doubling of an invisible force revealing an interior structure; this X-Ray displays an effect of the invisible, a “reading” of shadows; either of “X-Ray” or the playof discursive regimes “developing” upon the photographic plate. It is hard to imagine a more apt illustration of the play of discursive operations than the X-Ray’s hazy cohabitation of internal and external structures this combination of bone, flesh, precious metal, and particle physics. The mythopoesis of this image as anatomical specimen, diagnostic tool, photographic innovation, legal evidence, empirical validation of particle physics, and record of the intangible substance of human Being, falls prey to the categories of scientific evidence and spiritual artifact. In both instances, what is marked is a presence that passes through flesh, either as wavelength or “spirit,” a presence that is never actually “there,” except through the evidence of its ephemeral transit. X–Ray radiation appears as something other than itself; its existence established by an image of a hand, itself no more than a collection of shadows. The body’s inherent dualism of matter and spirit is an infection caused by the inherent forgetfulness of language.Hence, the meaning of the image is a supplementof any number of interpretations beyond the clinical or diagnostic, including its value as art and “artifact;” moving it into the critical sphere of photography as well as medicine. The artistic content at play in the image offers as a more amicable abode for the categories of matter and spirit; and a body that seeks the unification of physiological and psychic spheres must turn to art to materialize.
Roentgen could not provide “formulae” or mathematical evidence of his discovery, nor could he demonstrate its existence by direct empirical proof: only a trace  of its passage through matter, its effect, was available. In the absence of textural/computational proof, purely visual evidence must suffice. Where a drawing or diagram would be suspect, the visual spectacle of the photograph produced evidence that exceeded, in its documentary immediacy, any mathematical equations, discursive proof, or artistic conceit.“A photograph, not a drawing or engraving [assured]… that there was a certaintythat such a thing had existed: not a question of exactitude, but of reality...given without mediation, the fact was established without method.”Roland Barthes describes this phenomenon as an inherent predicate of the photograph, as our radiographic specimen migrates from art to artifact:
It accompanies the unheard of identification of reality…it becomes at once evidential and exclamative…that crazy point where affect…is a guarantee of being.
The reality of this visual document is inherently deferred, the photographic print, after all only “stores the chemical effects on its negative”while the actual wavelengths of electromagnetic energy, this mercurial new force Roentgen has deemed the “X-Ray,” remains invisible. The general confusion of terms embedded in our use of the noun “X-Ray” to describe the object, the diagnostic image, the trace of the presence of electromagnetic radiation, for the physical forces of electromagnetism,demonstrates the complex relation between the regions of the invisible and the visible signs that mark their existence.Yet, this visual record of the passage or obstruction of radiation, this image of a new spatial/temporal capacity; inside and outside simultaneously revealed, is itself a hybrid creation: a “proto photograph” whose ontic presentation mimics the ontological foundation of photography; visible light recorded through chemical means. This X-Ray “photograph” emerges, as well, against the backdrop of the history of medical illustration. An entire legacy of drawn, printed, and painted body images, as well as the discourse of photography contributes to this image.
A radical new vision of our physical being assumes the appearance, and the validating presence, of photography; and because of its elision with the epistemological trajectory of the photograph, it is enshrined as “proof”of a scientific discovery:
In this place which extends between infinity and the subject…it has been absolutely, irrefutably present, and yet already deferred, I had induced the truth of the image, the reality of its origin…no painted portrait …could compel me to believe its referent had really existed.
The inherent “credibility” of the photograph “transforms subject into object”providing a focus that takes us beyond the dramatic verisimilitude of the image, into a territory outside the presentation of medical “facts.” We are reminded of the moment of the photograph, the quality of its temporal present/past, as a partner to the jointly revealed inside and outside. Roentgen proves the existence of his mysterious discovery by recording its passage through time, through flesh, and its “arrival” upon a photographic plate:
The image, says phenomenology, is an object as nothing. Now in the photograph, what I posit is not only the absence of the object: it is also by one and the same movement, on equal terms, the fact that this object has indeed existed and that it has been there where I see it. 
A symbol of the tactile senses, the hand, offered in the formal and technical context of photography, establishes documentary proof of an impalpable force. Barthes’ concept of “air,” specific, in his case, to “…the expression, the look [of the sitter]…that exorbitant thing which induces from body to soul…” might be expanded to help account for the power of this image. “Air” supplements the mere appearance, the “mask” of the sitter with:
The luminous shadow which accompanies the body…if the photograph fails to show this air, then the body moves without a shadow, and once this shadow is severed…there remains no more than a sterile body.
Shadows dominate in this proto-photograph, “shadowed” not least of all by the luminous play of signifiers that accommodate limitless possibilities for its appearance; the “body” in Roetgen’s X-ray appears through the interplay of innovation and precedent. To avoid a “sterile” body, Barthes predicates a shadow presence, a photo-nimbus that quickens the photo-body to “life.” If, through the playfulness of past and present, body and spirit, inspired by this shadow picture, we combine Barthes’ contemporary notion of “air” with a correlate borrowed from by medieval aesthetics, claritas, we generate a critical notion founded on the phenomenal traces of “spirit.” A term gesturing toward the poiesis required to account for the power of Frau Roentgen’s irradiated hand, mapping, I would argue, one instance of the crucial contribution of art to anatomical science. Art restores, through the play of significations it generates, the “air and light,” the life of the body represented by phenomenal traces of “spirit.” Claritas, the medieval notion of the “light of being” takes on a new meaning in this context; the “quiddity” of this X-ray offers a lambent equivocation between subject and object, cause and effect, animating fluorescence and crepuscular doom. The marriage of “air” and “claritas” yields a critical texture that accounts for a visual presence beyond mere likeness, appearance that tests the mechanics of description: the technological gaze that arrests our attention through a potent interplay of objective and transgressive content.
Is it any wonder that Frau Roentgen greeted this putative icon of modern science with fear and dread? The dark shadow of her rings must have inspired a frisson of terror in Frau Roentgen, transforming this image of her hand from an anonymous anatomical specimen, the “coded” matter of thestudium,to something specific and individual; the arresting detail of theBarthesian Punctum:
Remind[ing] us of a sphere beyond the frame of the image… A detail attracts me…marked in my eyes with a higher value. This detail is the Punctum…the blind field [of the punctum] takes the spectator outside its frame, and it is there that I animate this photograph and it animates me. 
Hidden in the deep recesses of her ring-shadows is a marker of her individuality, conflated with regions of social intercourse beyond the frame of the image. Again, to interpret this “shadowgraph” we drift from the scientific frame into regions that play at the thematic margins of the image, always circulating back to its evanescent, evidentiary “truth.” The “till death do us part” of the marriage vow, the “care”signified by this sinecure against loss and oblivisence, has found its visual equivalent in the opacity of her ring. The inevitability of death, embedded in the cultural tradition of the momentomori, appeared before her, as her sense of identity as an individual living being collided with her reduction to an anonymous “enframed” anatomical specimen. In this case, another interpretation comes into play; the intrusion of the technical gaze exceeds and transgresses the limits established within a moment of scientific discourse, yielding to a “poetic” conflation of the tyranny of death with this exposure of her physical, inward self: “air” and “light” replaced by the blank suffocation of the tomb.
Death is the eidos of the photograph…It is because each photograph always contains this imperious sign of my death that each one, however attached to the world of the living, challenges each one of us. 
Rehearsing a persistent tension in the history of anatomical illustration, this radiograph reveals dimensions of physical Being considered “taboo” and appropriately invisible, inviting a transgressive and potentially anarchic sight that must be brought within the curbs of a given visual precedent. It registers, as well, the promiscuities of meaning within the shadow play of language. The “style,” the version of representation produced by the technology of the X-ray positions it within the (then) nascent aesthetic of photography. To render this new way of seeing “visible,” as a permissible mode of seeing and as an intelligible image, Roentgen and his audience must appeal to a precedent, an order of sight established by the visual arts, and with this precedent comes an unbidden iconographic legacy; the lambent skeleton as harbinger of death and spectral revenant.
The publication of this image yielded a spectacle of mass enthusiasm and deep suspicion, offering a new and intense visual experience of the body. As a result, the photographic flirtation with spectacle and death is engaged and amplified: “If photography seems to me closer to the theatre, it is by way of a singular intermediary…by way of death…to designate oneself as a body simultaneously living and dead.
Ironically, just as Roentgen used this image to demonstrate the existence of an invisible force for scientific purposes, others viewed the image’s spectral quality, largely a product of the crudeness of a nascent imaging technology, as proof of the soul, of an animating life force.It was claimed that just as spectral bones may prefigure death, the nimbus of light that cloaks this image recorded a transcendental ectoplasm, a spirit-trace. For some, the ineffable content of our Being, endangered by rational, reductive empiricism and science, tremulously asserted itself within this image. This signifier of “purely empirical” representation still entertained a lack, a void, an unaccountable quantity not measured by the rational or analytic ambitions of the image. However risible or naïve these readings of the X-Ray may seem, they indicate a major field in the history of bodily representations by artist and anatomist: to what degree, if at all, is the machine of the body also a sacred precinct, and how may the scalpel or the pen confirm or contradict the presence of a “sacred anatomy?”
Anatomical images are absorbed by the permissions of seeing that determine them within a stylistic and chronological context, a license derived from the aesthetic and political as much as the so called “objective” discourse of science. Madam Roentgen’s hand ultimately joins the tug of war between the alleged objective gaze of science, and the subjective visual “frames” established by art, each collaborating and confirming, antagonizing and reforming broader “admissions” of the visible. An ethical negotiation mediating between issues of scientific accuracy and artistic style, transgression and permission, innovation and precedent imposed upon the anatomist and the artist.
At risk is the dissolution of the body from ‘vessel of the spirit” into material fragments related by physical function, subordinate to contingent systems, with visual presentation that emphasizes system and abstraction over a recognizable corporeality. Alternatively, there is the figure whose complex mechanisms are subordinate to a cohesive presentation, organized within the consolation of a higher mental or spiritual content, residing in an historically aestheticized body. What is of significance is that each of these extremes and their permutations find existence within a matrix of presentation and permissions: “figure” and “discourse” appropriated towards the medical and the artistic.
The figure is both inside and outside...language is not anhomogenous medium, it is...divided because it interiorizes the figural in the articulated. The eye is inside speech because there is no articulated language without the exteriorization of something visible, but also because there is at least a gesticulatory, “visible” exteriority at the heart of discourse that is its expression.”
Knowledge, in the case of anatomical illustration, is susceptible to the ideology of the eye, an active synergy between the anatomical diagram on the one hand, and the figure in art, on the other. It is the conjunction of these disciplines, of styles of thought with a complimentary visual style, that produces the next “new” form of the body; “obsessed with angels or machines,” either “the soul comes joyful to the eye,”or dissolves within a matrix of interleaved and dispassionate systems.
Barthes, Roland, Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography, R. Howard, trans. New York: Hill and
Brinton-Wolbarst, Anthony, Looking Within. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
Cartwright, Lisa, Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine’s Visual Culture.Minneapolis, University of
Minnesota Press, 1995.
Derrida, Jacques, Of Grammatology. G.S. Spivak, trans. Baltimore: John’s Hopkins University
_____, “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Human Sciences” in Writing and Difference. A. Bass, trans.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Eco, Umberto, The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas. H. Brendin, trans. Cambridge: Harvard University
Ginsberg, Allen. Collected Poems: 1947-1980. New York: Harper and Rowe, 1984.
Heidegger, Martin, Being and Time. J. Stambaugh, trans. Albany: New York University, 1996.
_____,“The Question Concerning Technology” in Basic Writings. D.F. Krell,ed. New York: Harper
Holtzmann-Kevles, Bettyann, Naked to the Bone: Medical Imaging in the Twentieth Century. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1997.
Kittler, Friedrich A, Gramaphone, Film, Typewriter, G. Winthrop-Young & M. Wutz, trans. Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1999.
Lyotard, Jean-François, Discourse, Figure. A. Hudek and M. Lydon Trans. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 2011.
Sawday, Jonathan, The Body Emblazoned: Dissection and the Human Body in Renaissance Culture. London:
Tolan, Gal, “The Emergence of the Silent Witness: the Medical and Legal Reception in the U.S.A.”
Social Studies of Science. Vol. 34, no. 4. 8/2004.
 This image of the hand of Frau Roentgen, the wife of Physicist Karl Roentgen, published in 1895, is credibly established as the first X-ray image. See Cartwright, Lisa. Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine’s Visual Culture. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1995. Pgs 107-119. See also, Holtzmann Kevles, Bettyann. Naked to the Bone: Medical Imaging in the Twentieth Century. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1997. Pgs. 9-33 and Brinton Wolbarst, Anthony. Looking Within. Berkeley: University of California Press,1999. 1-4.
 “The photograph thus stands as proof and justification of his identification of the mysterious force as a new kind of ray…An image registered on the photographic plate gained the status of experimental proof…” Cartwright, Lisa, Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine’s Visual Culture. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1995.pgs.112-13.
 “A much more complex and contradictory relation of identification and exposure exists among bodies, images and cultural apparatus.” Cartwright, Lisa, Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine’s Visual Culture. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1995.p. 125.
 Roentgen’s circulated a version of this photo that did include explanatory text, written on its frame or mount. Presumably, Roentgen felt the need to explain to his colleagues what they were seeing, a tribute to the novelty of the experience, and published several papers on the topic before dropping the issue. No text intrudes on the image itself, as it would in a conventional anatomical illustration.
 This is, of course, an abbreviation of the title of Derrida’s essay “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” This essay comprises a seminal text in the formation of this argument. Derrida, Jacques, “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Human Sciences” in Writing and Difference. A. Bass, trans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. pgs. 278-293.
 Initially, the radiograph was greeted with suspicion and revulsion “This model of visual knowledge as corporeal penetration and invasion…the X-Ray signifies the ultimate violation of the boundaries that define subjectivity and identity, exposing the private interior to the gaze of medicine and the public at large.” Cartwright, Lisa, Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine’s Visual Culture. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1995. pgs. 114, 121. But the X-Ray’s clinical value quickly overwhelmed objections to its “invasive” capacities.
 “The essence of modern technology shows itself in what we call enframing...Enframing is the gathering together which belongs to that setting-upon which challenges man and puts him position to reveal the actual, in the mode of ordering, as standing reserve.” Heidegger, Martin, “The Question Concerning Technology” in Basic Writings. D.F. Krell, ed. New York: Harper Collins, 1993.328, 329.
 “When (Roentgen) showed the picture to her, she could hardly believe that this bony hand was her own and shuddered at the thought that she was seeing her skeleton. To Mrs. Roentgen, as to many others later, this experience gave a vague premonition of death.” Glasser, Otto, Dr. W. C. Roentgen, quoted in Cartwright, Lisa, Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine’s Visual Culture.Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1995. pg. 115.
 Publication of this image generated an impressive public response, linking this image, I would argue, to the tradition of the anatomy as a public spectacle. See Cartwright, Lisa, Screening the Body: Tracing Medicine’s Visual Culture. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1995. Pgs 107-119. and Holtzmann Kevles, Bettyann, Naked to the Bone: Medical Imaging in the Twentieth Century. See also: Sawday, Jonathan, The Body Emblazoned: Dissection and the Human Body in Renaissance Culture. London: Routledge, 1996. Pgs 54-85.
 In Heideggerian terms, Frau Roentgen’s turning away from this image constitutes the indifference of “the they” to death: “In angst about death, Da-sein is brought before itself as delivered over to its possibility not-to-be-bypassed. The they is careful to distort this Angst into the fear as a future event...indifference estranges Da-sein from its ownmost nonrelational potentiality-of-being...falling prey...Entangled, everyday being-toward-death is a constant flight from death...one’s own Da-sein is always already dying, that is, it is a being-toward-its-end...The entangled everydayness of Da-sein knows about the certainty of death, and yet avoids being-certain.” In contrast, the image can function as an “icon” of being connecting care with death: “The problem of the possible wholeness of the being which we ourselves actually are exists justifiably if care, as the fundamental constitution of Da-sein, ‘is connected’ with death as the most extreme possibility of this being.” Heidegger, Martin, Being and Time. J. Stambaugh, trans. Albany: New York University, 1996.183,185, 238, 239.
 “Not even in an ideal universe of an empirically reduced number of possibilities would the projected “end” of knowledge ever coincide with its “means.” Such a coincidence-“engineering”-is an impossible dream of plentitude.” Knowledge is a field “of freeplay, that is to say, a field of infinite substitutions in the closure of a finite ensemble.” Derrida, Jacques, Of Grammatology. G.S.Spivak, trans. Baltimore: John’s Hopkins University Press, 1997. xix. “The engineer, whom Levi-Strauss opposes to the bricoleur, should be the one to construct the totality of his language, syntax, and lexicon...the engineer is a myth produced by the bricoleur.” Derrida, “Sign Structure and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” in Writing and Difference. 1978. 285.
 For a discussion of Levi-Strauss and the “scandal” of the apparent contradiction/collapse of the nature/culture caesura through the “incest taboo” See: Derrida, Jacques, “Sign Structure and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” 1978. 283. I would argue a symmetrical case for the mind/body, matter/spirit dyad, problematic for anatomical science, and finds various resolutions in the representational schemata grafted from the visual arts.
 See: Derrida, Jacques, “Sign Structure and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” 1978. 278-282.
 That is a “discourse which borrows from a heritage the resources necessary for the deconstruction of that heritage itself...language bears within itself the necessity of its own critique.” Derrida, 1997. xviii.
 My use of the verb “staging” is a variation upon Heidegger’s concept of the “clearing” opened by the work of art, which “is in itself at the same time a concealment.” Heidegger seems to anticipate in the concealment/unconcealment of clearing, aspects of Derrida’s “play” of signifiers in “a system in which the central signified, is never absolutely present.” Derrida, 1978. 280. For Heidegger, there is, within the clearing an opportunity for “a curious opposition of presencing, that always withholds itself” in which “a being might present itself as other than it is.” The clearing is for Heidegger, “never a merely existent state, but a happening.” Heidegger, 1997, 178, 179.
 Derrida, Jacques, “Sign Structure and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” 1978. 284, 292.
 Derrida, Jacques, 1978. 282.
 The author acknowledges the fallacy embedded in any argument that turns upon the metaphor of a “skeletal” core or center upon which a procession of signifiers may rely with finality. Yet this X-ray, in its cloudy, dream like ambiguities of form, expresses, I argue, the center-less, “double-jointed” Spivak, in Derrida, Jacques, 1997. lxvi. condition of discourse – as a record of a dynamic “coming to presence” of an electromagnetic force that is never fully realized as itself, but recorded as something else – “he [Roentgen] did not have a photographic image of the subject, but rather the image of its shadow.” Holtzmann-Kevles, 1998. 20. thus it tolerates a bricolage of possible “interpretations.”
For Derrida on “Bricolage” see: Derrida, 1978. 285-289.
 This image renders up the unresolved conflict between the relations between the “philosopheme or the theorem...and the mytheme or mythopoem…for lack of explicitly posing this problem, we condemn ourselves to the transforming the alleged transgression of philosophy into a unnoticed fault within the philosophical realm. Empiricism would be the genus of which all these faults will be the species...empiricism is the matrix of all faults menacing a discourse which...considers itself scientific, If we wanted to pose the problem of empiricism and bricolage...we would probably end up very quickly with a number of absolutely contradictory propositions concerning the status of discourse.”
Derrida, Jacques, 1978, 288-89. Roentgen’s own thinking appears to run contrary to the totalizing ambitions of transcendental empiricism, ushering in a new order of thought: as “An experimentalist, he rejected the notion that scientists begin with a working hypothesis so that their results fit into a grand system. He detested what we would call “overarching theorizing,” the search for a unified theory...That is, he should systematically explore a single phenomenon from every possible angle and with no preconceived ideas as to where it should lead.” HoltzmannKevles, Bettyann. Naked to the Bone: Medical Imaging in the Twentieth Century. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press, 1998. 19.
 See: Derrida, Jacques, 1978. 288, 289.
 The self critical process of scientific language might “question systematically and rigorously the history of [its] concepts...to step ‘outside philosophy.’” Or, “in order to avoid the sterilizing effects of the [former] consists in conserve[ing] all these old concepts within the domain of empirical discovery while here and there denouncing their limits, treating hem as tools...and they are employed destroy the old machinery to which they belonged.” Derrida, 1978. 284.
 Levi-Strauss, quoted in Derrida. 1978. 287.
 In his critique of Levi-Strauss, Derrida notes a “tension with history” evidenced through the “thematic of historicity” which has “always been required by the determination of Being as presence...if history always the unity of a becoming, as the tradition of truth or the development of science or knowledge oriented toward the appropriation of truth in presence and self presence...into a moment of the history of metaphysics.” This X-Ray is heralded as a “revolutionary” occurrence, that came about by “a rupture with its past, its origin and cause...by putting history between brackets,” Derrida, 1993. 291. Rather than another expression of the play, the bricolage of the intersecting mythemes of anatomy, particle physics, photography, “care,” and Heidegger’s “Being-toward-death.”
 Derrida, 1978. 287.
 “Play is a disruption of presence. The presence of an element is always a signifying and substitutive reference inscribed in a system of differences and the movement of a chain” Derrida, 1978. 292.
 “The Heideggerian destruction of metaphysics...of the determination of Being as presence...all of these destructive discourses...are trapped in a kind of circle...we can pronounce not a single destructive proposition which has not already had to slip into the form, the logic, the implicit postulations of precisely what it seeks to contest...The concept of the sign cannot...surpass this opposition between the sensible and the intelligible. The concept of the sign...has been determined by this opposition.” Derrida, Jacques, 1978. 281.
 “This movement of play, permitted by the lack or absence of a center or origin, is the movement of supplementarity. Derrida, Jacques, 1978. 289.
 “Derrida’s “trace” (in the original text “trace” is crossed out, in the spirit of Heidegger’s “sous rature” ‘the mark of an inarticulable presence’) is the mark of the absence of a presence, an always already absent present...the lack at the origin that is the condition of thought and experience.” Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. Translator’ preface to Derrida, Jacques, Of Grammatology.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 1997. xvii. Of the trace, Derrida says “The trace is not only the disappearance of the origin...it means that the origin did not even disappear that is was never constituted except by reciprocally by a non-origin, the trace, which thus becomes the origin of the origin. Derrida, 1997. 61, 91.
 Photographs are, of course, as laden with “conceits” as any of the other visual arts, but has been a tendency, now challenged by digital manipulation, to valorize their “documentary” legitimacy.
 Barthes, Roland, Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography, R. Howard, trans. New York: Hill and Wang, 1981. p. 80.
 Barthes, 1981, p.113.
 Kittler, Friedrich A, Gramaphone, Film, Typewriter, G. Winthrop-Young & M. Wutz, trans. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999. p. 119.
 Whose substance is undetectable without the intervention of technology, or the clinical symptoms of exposure.
 There is a similar poesis of the body; insubstantial qualities like “spirit” or “soul” find substance and spatial presence in “heart.” How often is an intelligent person credited with having “brains,” or the courageous, even the courageous woman, “balls?”
 For an interesting jurisprudential account of the “silent witness doctrine;” the evidentiary status of the photograph and the X-Ray, See: Golan, Tal, “The Emergence of the Silent Witness: the Medical and Legal Reception in the U.S.A.” Social Studies of Science. Vol. 34, no. 4. 8/2004.
 Barthes, 1981. p. 77.
 Barthes, 1981. p. 13.
 Barthes, 1981. p. 115.
 Barthes. 1981. p. 109.
 Barthes. 1981, p. 110.
 Barthes, 1981: “The studium is always coded, the punctum is not.” p. 51.
 Barthes, 1981, pgs. 42, 53.
 I use the term “care” in the Heideggarian sense of ““care as the being of Dasein.” “Equiprimordially, care determines the fundamental mode of this being according to what is delivered over (thrownness) to the world taken care of...the existential condition of the possibility of the ‘cares of life’ and ‘dedication’ must be conceived in a primordial, that is, ontological sense as care.” This idea will be further developed at some length below. Heidegger, Martin, Being and Time. J. Stambaugh, trans. Albany, New York University, 1996. 183, 185.
 Barthes, 1981, p. 9, 15.
 Barthes, 1981, p. 31. 32.
 See: Holtzmann Kevles, 1998. 24-30.
 I have borrowed this term from: Sawday, Jonathan, The Body Emblazoned: Dissection and the Human Body in Renaissance Culture. London: Roteledge, 1996 pgs. 85-141.
 Lyotard, Jean Francois, Discours, Figure. Paris: Klincksieck, 1971. 13-14.
 I quote from Alan Ginsberg’s poem “Song (The Weight of the World,)” a major inspiration for this essay. Ginsberg, Allen, Collected Poems: 1947-1980. New York: Harper and Rowe, 1984.