Three years ago

"
[...]
Ah, here we are. On what subject. The question "whose are the feet?" to which they wanted to bring round [faire revenir] the question "whose are the shoes?" assumes that the question "of what?" or "what are the feet?" has been resolved. Are they? Do they represent? Whom or what? With or without shoes? These shoes are more or less detached [in themselves, from each other and from the feet) and by that fact discharged: from a common task or function. Both because they are visibly detached and because - never forget the invisible ether of this trivial self-evidence - they are painted objects (out of work because they are in a work) and the subject of a picture. Nonfunctioning, defunct, they are detached, in this double sense, and again in another double sense, that of being untied and that of the detachment/secondment of an emissary: diplomatic representation, if you like, by metonymy of synecdoche. And what is said of the shoes can also be said, although the operation is more delicate around the ankle, of the neck or the feet
[...}
"
J. Derrida, The truth in painting, pg. 283

or
- + R (into the bargain)