In the present case, the agents and patients of which we are discriminated against under the terms ego, hic and nunc, we live mediation, especially intercultural mediation, as a reality that is now immanent and which affects our modern lives, which are becoming increasingly circumscribed in a time period in which proximity to the other presents itself as an alternative to the reciprocal overshooting of Soi. Aware of this opportunity, of this renewed humanism, we have made it a subject of study now covered by a set of concepts from the various fields of the humanities. However, and without going into history here, intercultural mediation is an old reality, sometimes forgotten for comfort or fear. However, as the whole human adventure shows, it is carried out by means of exchanges of various kinds, from the most specific to the most light, between cultures of differential structures. These exchanges, pragmatic and/or symbolic, broaden our consciences, knowledge, practices and consequently our vision of the world; they have, and still today, led to unobeyed dialectics, illustrating the ability to adapt, invent or reinvent within territories forms and functions in line with their innovative contingencies. Many of the cultures, if not all in front of the mass culture and the explosion of the current means of communication, bear the signature of these meetings, which they have been able to adjust or even compel to their reality (s) as a result of a process that is developed vectorically by assimilation/accommodation, the junction of which consists of an arrangement called adaptation. This theoretical material allows us to visualise the dynamics of this mediation by highlighting how it works and what is at stake; creating a framework while modulating the interactional steps that precede it. This substrate, which is otherwise described in the field of cultural mediation by Jean Caune, also takes on the features of a triadic model used to explore the mediational mechanisms inherent in the cultural phenomenon of the arts, and designed around what he calls the triple metaphor of contact, link and breach. Those three-pole models follow the very principle of semmiosis as described by Peirce, or are similar to the linguistic sign model as presented, inter alia, by Klinkenberg. If the paradigms differ because they belong to different fields, the X-ray material is nevertheless common, with the only variable depending on its approach. Thus, psychanalysing intercultural mediation, in particular through the artistic epiphenomene, which is the subject of our debate, calls for an examination of the relevance of the tripolar model it uses; identify the elements of this tripartite set of dialectics; to shed light on certain key concepts that feed into these dialectics, such as the complex culture that is reviewed through the text; finally, to update the precise stages of the journey, which seeks to bring together and promotes the exchange of knowledge, which must necessarily pass through speech, whatever its form and method. That is the entire undertaking which I propose, starting with a non-exhaustive reading of a few photographs made by Hervé Dangla, the subject of which contains traces of transculturation clearly intended for interculturation. By approaching the photographs of Hervé Dangla as we propose, it goes without saying that we are probably taking subjective options. But we want to explore them precisely because they reveal the very source of interculturation caused by the phenomenon.