Many years ago, I had written an article titled 'The Decalogue of the Ideal Photograph.' An exaggerated title, and obviously, the decalogue could be a 'twentylouge' or a 'fivelouge' without any reason to limit ourselves. But let's look roughly at what these elements were, which I continue to believe are important. First of all, a photograph has four sides and anything within this photograph must play in the same way and with the same significance. It isn’t that something at the center or at the edge is more important than the other. It’s not a person and not a cloud, everything enclosed by the four sides holds the same importance. This complex way of presenting the image obeys our own mandate which is what the viewer accepts as absolute, clear, having a definitive proposition. We may not accept the quality but we respect the absolute proposition. It is not right for the photographer to hesitate, the click with which they captured all these elements within the four sides must be a dynamic affirmation. What Bresson said, every click must be a yes and never a maybe. Of course, there is a general line, a general goal, a general proposition that emerges from the photograph. However, it cannot be too clear because if it is too clear it exhausts the photograph, it is also very poor, it is a very small piece of paper, exhausted within seconds. It must therefore trap contradictions, let’s say an example of a descriptive photograph, showing three things. If the photographer manages to imply a narrative without actually narrating then they have created a contrast which creates tension which creates interest. Also, the great ability of the photographer is to change the values of reality into photographic values. A garment, a fabric, a curve, a shadow in real life do not have so much importance, in photography however it overturns the logical sequence of values and transfers it to their own proposition, thus this mutation of values is very important. While the photographer must say something specific that is an absolute proposition, as I have already said, it must not do this as pre-digested food, it must do it as a kind of hint, transcendence, abstraction, three very interesting words for art. That is, it should not go like advertising photography towards a target and aim but should imply indirectly so as to give the viewer the opportunity to develop their own sensitivity and to penetrate the photograph. And even more, if the photographer has learned to do this they must each time overthrow it because if they learn and do it in a certain way they telegraph their message to the viewer, to the reader therefore they must dare to do what they do not know. They must play at the edge of the cliff. Any photographer who has played at the edge of the cliff and has succeeded has made a very strong photograph. Most of the time they will fail but that is within the logic of creation. However, if they choose the safety of things they know well then they will produce an acceptable result but never stir emotion. They must therefore move on the edge of the cliff. From all this we realize that nothing is absolutely specific, concepts such as the mutation of values, the edge of the cliff, transcendence, abstraction all these refer to something precarious. But this is art, the artist must constantly feel that they are moving on unstable ground. If the ground becomes stable then their creation will not be interesting. Exactly because it is shifting sand it gives them the interest and the right to explore something new and to create a tension in the viewer.