Meaninglessness is an arbitrary word. Jean Baudrillard states that an acceptance of the world’s meaninglessness could constitute a significant shift in the outcome of the ongoing “desertization” of the real, and consequently, the hyperreal expansion and expenditure. If we engage in this perception “we could play with forms, appearances and our impulses, without worrying about their ultimate destination” (Baudrillard 2001:128). Is it possible to address such an undertaking of a meaninglessness end by means of playing with forms without engaging in simulacra, i.e. to engage in an activity to induce a change in, or reversion of hyperreality (Grace, 2000:172f)? In light of meaninglessness and of forms in general, it seems as though ‘we’ cannot stop (re)making images. How then go about creating a meaninglessness in a context of digital visual production? If media are “technical objects” that imposes “new modes of relation and perception”, is it possible then to exert other modes of relations, without enacting the hyperreal (Genosko 1999:93)? Instead of being affirmatively positive of ‘iconoclashing’, like Latour (2002), neither distinguishing between mediums nor frequency (of forms), the question of who asserts what Baudrillard calls “breakdown” and consequently a “break-in”, is pivotal (Genosko 1999:90). Arguing for meaninglessness nonetheless, could certainly strike one as constituting a meaningful activity, that thus, somewhat paradoxically it might seem, could lead to acts of possible “strategic meaninglessness”. In a way then, by advocating meaninglessness through and by forms, meaninglessness (become) matter.