This work deals with the question of the classifiability and comprehensibility of our world and the human urge to understand the underlying order of the world. In short, it is about the never-ending search for knowledge. It takes place in observatories, laboratories, institutes, and research centers and makes near-Earth objects, upsets of space-time, and the fiber-optic architecture of the brain the subject of investigation. The results of such basic research have taken over the interpretative sovereignty in explaining our world. But how exactly are these explanatory models composed? What does the work on them look like; right up front, where new knowledge is gained? And is the world really ordered exactly as we assume? Or is this order the result of human attribution, which also depends on what we can perceive, what we remember, and how we can process it? In order to get closer to what cognition is in the first place and what it looks like, I as a photographer - like a scientist does it - set up an investigation. For one thing, there is the experimental set-up: a scientist's laboratory becomes my laboratory. I set up my camera and let it expose a picture every 25 seconds for two hours in my absence while the scientist works. The result is a data set that needs to be examined. Do thinking and cognition become visible in these images; the thinking of new thoughts? Or do I, as a viewer, read it into the images? The *Thinking-Heads* created here are joined by documentary images and videos of these research sites, which originate from the highest possible degree of objective observation. Although the image of the observed situation is influenced by me, the situation itself is not. These images tell of the field of tension between knowledge and non-knowledge, but can only be deciphered by adding a description of the image. Even if the content of the picture is clearly recognizable. Documentary photography as an "evidential" medium is tested here for its ability to convey information. Very similar to the question formulated at the beginning about the order of things, the question arises: is meaning immanent in the image, or does it arise in the viewing?
This work deals with the question of the classifiability and comprehensibility of our world and the human urge to understand the underlying order of the world. In short, it is about the never-ending search for knowledge. It takes place in observatories, laboratories, institutes, and research centers and makes near-Earth objects, upsets of space-time, and the fiber-optic architecture of the brain the subject of investigation. The results of such basic research have taken over the interpretative sovereignty in explaining our world. But how exactly are these explanatory models composed? What does the work on them look like; right up front, where new knowledge is gained? And is the world really ordered exactly as we assume? Or is this order the result of human attribution, which also depends on what we can perceive, what we remember, and how we can process it? In order to get closer to what cognition is in the first place and what it looks like, I as a photographer - like a scientist does it - set up an investigation. For one thing, there is the experimental set-up: a scientist's laboratory becomes my laboratory. I set up my camera and let it expose a picture every 25 seconds for two hours in my absence while the scientist works. The result is a data set that needs to be examined. Do thinking and cognition become visible in these images; the thinking of new thoughts? Or do I, as a viewer, read it into the images? The *Thinking-Heads* created here are joined by documentary images and videos of these research sites, which originate from the highest possible degree of objective observation. Although the image of the observed situation is influenced by me, the situation itself is not. These images tell of the field of tension between knowledge and non-knowledge, but can only be deciphered by adding a description of the image. Even if the content of the picture is clearly recognizable. Documentary photography as an "evidential" medium is tested here for its ability to convey information. Very similar to the question formulated at the beginning about the order of things, the question arises: is meaning immanent in the image, or does it arise in the viewing?