Sam is walking on the along the riverbank in Paris. When he looks over he thinks he sees his friend Moses but he isn’t sure, for the river is wide. He decides to take the bridge to see if it really is Moses on the other side. Moses is walking on the opposite riverbank, when he looks over and thinks he sees his friend Sam on the other side of the river. He decides to take the bridge to see whether it really is Sam. On the bridge it turns out to be neither.

Result #1

They both turn to walk away, and off they go. The difference of route seems irrelevant. But the difference of movement between the two people and their bodies? As it happens, they both turn to walk back to the other side.

Result #2

Sam is walking on the along the riverbank in Paris. When he looks over he thinks he sees his friend Moses but he isn’t sure, for the river is wide. He decides to take the bridge to see if it really is Moses on the other side. Moses is walking on the opposite riverbank, when he looks over and thinks he sees his friend Sam on the other side of the river. He decides to take the bridge to see whether it really is Sam. On the bridge it turns out to be neither.They drift onto a raft across the water and encounter a river monster which throws them back into the sea. Moses suggests that they try to become like the monster, but the creature says to them, As long as you are near the shore you will be safe. They carry on until they reach the other side. When they reach the other side they look to the monster for protection, but he has asked them if they want his boat. They say yes, and he takes it back to the shore. They dive down and jump into the water, but the monster has taken hold of them and is trying to pull them ashore. They fight it off until the monster figures out a better plan. He tries to swing the boat to the other side, but the others tell him no. The monster says, As long as you are close to the shore you will be protected. They abandon the raft and get into the boat. Moses gives chase, but can catch them. He tells them where to put their weapons. The others tell him to get back to the raft. They tell him to hold on tight. But Moses tells them what to do. They get back on the raft and begin to paddle along the river, but the monster has distracted them and is now trying to pull them down. They get back on the raft and begin to paddle along the river, but the others tell him to get back to the raft. Moses tells them where to put their weapons. They get back on the raft and begin to paddle along the river, but the others tell him to get back to the raft. Moses tells them where to put their weapons. They get back on the raft and begin to paddle along the river, but the others tell him to get back to the raft. Moses tells them where to put their weapons. They get back on the raft and begin to paddle along the river, but the others tell him to get back to the raft. Moses tells them where to put their weapons.

Result #3

Sam is walking on the along the riverbank in Paris. When he looks over he thinks he sees his friend Moses but he isn’t sure, for the river is wide. He decides to take the bridge to see if it really is Moses on the other side. Moses is walking on the opposite riverbank, when he looks over and thinks he sees his friend Sam on the other side of the river. He decides to take the bridge to see whether it really is Sam. On the bridge it turns out to be neither. On the other side, the bridge is broken. But he sees that a crew of vipers is hanging around a rowboat that is apparently on the other bank, which is right behind his own. So he decides to take the bridge and pretend to be a viper and pick up the rowboat. He does this well and so he gets back to the bridge where the rowboat is waiting for him. He is really an expert at pretending and so manages to pick up the boat, for only after he has picked it up can he tell if the boat is real. The vipers are waiting for him to pick up so they will give him a new rope and a new knife. They are very good at this and the new rope and knife are the most satisfying things in the piece.After the initial trick and the great distance he has gained he is finally successful. He has picked up the rowboat and is walking over to it. The vipers are sitting on the beach, waiting for him to arrive. They have seen him and are coming to take him along. The rowboat is full of people, and the vipers are standing at the beach taking ropes from him as if they were souvenirs of their visit. He takes the knives and sticks and sticks and climbs down into the boat, where he stands on the deck, waiting for a man to get back on the pier and help him. He knows that he is in trouble and so he puts them back on the beach and begins to play a viper on the deck. This is all very vaudeville, very chancy, very ridiculous, but it is a vaudeville of such wackiness and chicanery that one feels that this is a play on the vices and laws of play.The play of vices and laws is played out on the deck of a deckboat, on the pier, on the beach. One enters the world as a viper.

Result #4

Sam is walking on the along the riverbank in Paris. When he looks over he thinks he sees his friend Moses but he isn’t sure, for the river is wide. He decides to take the bridge to see if it really is Moses on the other side. Moses is walking on the opposite riverbank, when he looks over and thinks he sees his friend Sam on the other side of the river. He decides to take the bridge to see whether it really is Sam. On the bridge it turns out to be neither.In this case the people who live along the riverbank (who are swimming, sometimes in pairs, sometimes in families) are walking by themselves in the shallow water, not because they are either following a group of human beings or walking in the opposite direction. They are alone; and it is not because they are in the middle of a river. On the bridge, two people are chatting; two men are holding hands in an attempt to communicate. But nothing happens. Nobody even looks at each other. All they do is stop for a moment to listen. And then they go on to walk on the opposite bank.The river is wide; it will have a depth of, say, nine or ten feet. The bridge is underfoot; the people who are crossing it will be invisible to the river. But the two people on the bridge will be visible to the people walking across it. So there is an element of awareness on both sides of the bridge; they know what is going on, and can look at each other. The river is full; it will have a depth of twelve feet. They will look at each other from across the bridge and on to the other side of the river.The two people in the photograph are conscious of their roles as both actors and observers. They have to be. But it is not their job to do the jobs; it is theirs to decide which roles are theirs. Their talk is natural, human behavior; they dont need a river to talk about.It is no different from the way I live and the way most people are. I try very hard to be conscious of my role and to have others assume those roles. I have no problem with that, as long as I am conscious of it. But it has been difficult for a photographer to get that awareness. How is it possible that even an autonomous photograph can have this problem? That is where we have to look. In the end, it is photography that is the problem.

Result #5

The subject of the painting is neither Moses nor Sam but the two men in New York in the same spot at different times of day, and they are standing on the other side of the river on different days, and their conversation is completely lost in the act of talking. (This is suggested by the fact that the men are usually very tall and lean and their hair is straight, and the impulse to use perspective is all but absent.) The bridge is there in the middle of the river, and Moses is right on it, and she is right over there; they are about two feet apart. They pass each other over and over again and each time they are certain that they have made the right choice.They never talk to each other. They walk and talk and smile and make each other smile. It all seems quite arbitrary and impersonal and impersonal. The subject is absent. However, the painting (Moses, Sam, and I) remains there and it is evident that the subject of the painting is there in real time.I doubt that the title of the painting is entirely coincidental. Its difficult to say if the subject of the painting is simply a theme in the work itself or if it is at all a way to exclude it from the work. The paintings are very simple and they are bright and bright. But I am not sure whether this is the matter of suggestion or of fact, and the title of the painting is obviously an ambiguous point of departure.