WITHIN THE FRAME OF WAR, to live the day-to-day is to proceed within a temporal rupture, within a lapse in cause and effect. Despite our smart phone capacity to produce images strangle-held within a chronological logic, images unfold as fragments and merely by default, as testimony. The intention to observe and to record requires the privilege of time and permission. Encumbered by the grievances of military and violent transgressions, nuances and fragments attest to the visual logic of trauma – partial and/or peripheral. In war, is it possible to view these images beyond what may constitute proof – as it may be applied in “crimes against peace”, “crimes against humanity”, and “crimes of genocide”? The past year has produced a sea of visual information that has collapsed the intimate and catatonic from the residue of an observed experience to evidence – raising the question of entangle- ment – who gives testimony and who receives testimony as such? Ambivalence arrives as a sub-frame within war. As constituted across a 600,000 km territory, war devolves into reverberating constellations of displacement to render a new territoriality of conflict whereby image extends beyond the visual. Can silence be depicted within its own materiality? What is it to taste and smell war…as primarily rooted in feel- ings of precarity and fear. In the moment of sharing an image, how does subjectivity gain agency – be it as a wish to create community or, rather, as a choice of withdrawal? When does sharing become image grabbing for the sake of coopting experience of others? Perception in war goes askew. The act of reflexivity becomes anew, as part of a research process in the production of meaning in the context when there appears to be none.