The question of the epistemological status of the image, mainly the lens-based image, is something that was intensively discussed through the turn of the century (Daston and Gallison 1995 and 2001), as images were feeding what should be called mechanical objectivity. With the discovery of X-rays in 1896, a new kind of scientific image saw the light. An image that crossed the body and showed the skeleton, or that showed the lungs in some sort of blurred and encoded drawing, which was the privilege of skilled doctors to decipher. This kind of image, which simultaneously showed too much (showing the interior of the individual) and too less (because it needed certain skills to interpret them) was making success in popular imagination and a lot of contradictory concerns were explained very sharpened in Thomas Mann’s The Magic Mountain” (1912) (and also, indirectly, in Wells’ The Invisible Man (1897) and in popular movies from the first decade (G. Smith, Emile Cohl with “The x-rays glasses”, 1907). But the expansion of x-rays in the medicine field was quite contemporary of the invention of a sort of blurred drawings (inkblots) designed by Rorschach in 1921 to interpret the soul. Although Rorschach inkblots are drawings, and so they don’t have any epistemological status in themselves, they are supposed to get some truth from the individuals interior, expressed in the response, supposed very well measured in the scientist notebook, to those blurred images. In some way they are quite the inverse of x-rays images which portray the interior as seen by a machine. In this paper we will underline how the problem of objectivity in science and in medicine turned, in the beginning of the xx century, to be seen as a discourse produced upon codes belonging to specialists which can decipher them, and this fact was decisive to rise in literary fiction as well in the movies (comedy and drama) all kind of unconscious fantasies and anxiety shared in popular culture. We will point out that precisely as scientific images became blind images to common knowledge (which today is still more complex, like magnetic resonance or TAC), and as their value increases within medicine discourse, they are more able to be taken as a stating point to fantasy.