Let us pose the question more precisely: is not the image, every image, but a vector of its future misuse, hence the projection of its essential ex-propriety, the inscription, in and upon time, of its potential displacement and, by that very nature, its immanent placelessness? Indeed, the image—and so the document, if not the datum in itself?—conceals within it the very diagram of its inevitable, innumerable reappropriations. That is to say, the image presages and prefigures something like a vast, indeterminate expanse of fertile if fallow pastures, to any one of which it may at some point be cast—as a spore by a subtle wind—and into any soil of which it may be sifted, sewn, hence reincorporated as though into a sward to which it seems proper, when in fact this sudden ground can be no less than fundamentally alien—hence, ontologically improper—to the ever wayward image. As such, every image does inscribe the future with its own, immanent and imminent expropriation; it projects—from within its very configuration of meaning in the present of its production—the conditions of its own, eventual, ineluctable dislocation, and subsequently its own relocation, defined precisely by the absence of that locus to which the image had formerly seemed to adhere (though in truth the image adheres to no place, takes no place, is always essentially no-where) and from which it had derived its ephemeral, illusory plenitude. An image, stated otherwise, is the harbinger of its own proliferation and diminution in space, a concentration of the improper, an infinite density of loss and the unending iteration or dispersion of that loss… (II, 7a)