Photography's Expanded Field

Question 1: "For if modernist photography was somehow caught between two negations, between the conditions of being neither truly narrative nor stasis in its meaning effects- if the modernist photograph had become a sum of exclusions- then this opposition of negative terms easily generates a similar opposition but expressed positively" (pg 496). I understand that "non-stasis" is simply "narrative" (and the opposite is true as well), but what I am confuse about is the meaning of this quote when it is said that it is between, what does the "sum of exclusions" really mean? Because the meaning that the negative is a positive makes sense but what is not completely clear to me is that the photography is caught between the two negations if in fact it can be the other with this negative connotation. Does this mean that there isn't an inbetween, and that every photograph is one or the other, and there are no other variations? (also said that "photography is no longer the privileged middle term between two things that it isn't" (pg 505), a bit confused)

Question 2: In "cinematic photography," "the opening of the still image into manipulations from other cultural domains" (pg 501) is an expantion of the terms to a different kind of art. It's the fusion of narrative and stasis. I'm curious to know how art will evolve in the future to expand on these concepts.