If we wanted to let a man "see" an Ansel Adams photograph whose eyes do not react to the light, what could do if not telling it to him? We that we can see her, we would tell him about the grey tone glorification and about the extreme detail neatness. We would certainly tell him about the harmonious composition. And he would imagine her in his ideal visual but certainly creating a other image, since for instance he could have never had any experience as regards the neatness definition. His landscape could I wonder maybe be free from stereotype, his mountains could have a different profile also the same concept of space relativity could not coincide with ours see and with that of Adams. In the world of the man who does not have eyes, the matter loses his objectivity to hover in a new essence. The man could not necessarily walk with the feet on the ground but I wonder as. The over and the would lose their value below since in the world of the man who does not see there are not references: there is alone hearing, feeling; simple receipt of a feeling. Leaving from what which since his dawnings has been considered the most faithful representation than see,the photography, the man who does not see, sees a other photograph, more complex but simple at the same time. The man's new photograph what does not see, frees him and makes him able to hover in flight through which travel in a other dimension. Whereas every thing has its emotional epicentre, whereas the reality becomes SURREALISTIC.