Finally, without pretenses to nothing more than a sublimation of the identified hotspots, it is worth resuming the wider range of questions: can we definitively stop the process of disintegration of the social sphere? Can we overcome the congestion in post-history, and can we overcome the fear of anti-political dominance of the empowered image without its reference, and restore the balance between image and text and their productive complementarity? Can we dream of a Critical Museum and grasp the ‘dialectical contemporaneity’ amidst the rise of radical populist nationalism and religious fanaticism? Can we imagine a situation, contrary to Gibson’s remark, in which a more equitable distribution of the future is possible? Or, perhaps, we shall be run over by the reoccurrence of the manipulative non-critical meta-narratives where critical awareness is an anomaly that should be eliminated?
To reach the answer to these questions, we should reconsider our own position and our potential for critical thinking, which primarily requires the effort to confront the “stasis wrapped in the illusion of current change”. Assuming this position of over-identification vis-à-vis the described condition in the critical interregnum, through the complementary relationship built by Toshevski’s simple paradoxical concealing-revealing gesture and the space in-between the fragmented and open structure of the text, it is necessary to try to double our outlook: to direct it towards the wider socio-political context, between the withering away of the old, where only the interdependence of the capacities of imagination and the triggering of critical potential could permit the birth of the new.