• home
  • Collectables
  • About
  • contact
Menu

EYEMAZING

Keizersgracht 439
Amsterdam
0031617432795
gallery, book, magazine, photography, contemporary, visual artist, portrait, documentary, cutting edge, exhibition, artist, photo, picture, limited, featured, editions, collectors, museum, fine art, interview, publisher, monographe, book, biographie

Your Custom Text Here

EYEMAZING

  • home
  • Collectables
  • About
  • contact

Germán Herrera

February 28, 2018 EYEMAZING
The Magus.jpg

Art communicates truths or ideas that cannot be described by any other form of language. For this reason, the most stirring art can also be the hardest to write about. Germán Herrera’s work presents such a challenge. Herrera’s captivating photomontages unravel directly into the topography of the psyche. They strike personal notes, resonate deeply, and do not easily resolve into answers or translation. Herrera’s work is striking in how it immediately tugs at the mind on a subliminal level. Below the shadowy, luscious surfaces lurk ephemeral manifestations of philosophical concerns. Many of Herrera’s works seem to be palimpsests of unknown origin, teetering evocatively on the brink of obscurity.

Herrera exercises an alchemical imagination, sampling freely from classical painting, devotional iconography, and his own photographs taken from the natural world. Fragmented figures and ghost-like apparitions undermine the picture plane and connect to a dimension beyond the world of rational thought. He draws the material for his collages from a personal matrix of widely interconnected cultural influences, incorporating the traditions of his Mexican heritage, his studies of photography and neo-Reichian psychology, inspirations from art history, and his musings on the present.

Heather Snider: Your images have a rendering quality that is photographic but they are clearly not photographs by definition. Do you call your works photographs? What makes these works photographic? Is there a negative created in the process of making your work?

Germán Herrera: You are right in saying that they cannot really be labelled photographs. I consider them image based digital collages, which is more of a descriptive term for what I am doing. I have started to refer to the images as “endographs,” a term I have borrowed because, metaphorically, my imagery has to do with the inside. When asked what kind of photography I do I call it internal landscape or psychological landscape.

I am using the photographic platform because I was educated as a photographer. I studied photography, and loved Cartier-Bresson, street photography, the full frame, no editing, “Zen Archer” approach. And I still do go out and photograph, responding very intuitively to whatever I tune in to. But now I print from a file, I haven’t used film in a long time.

HS: Your use of digital technology is an important part of your work but not of your vision, in that the style of your work has a traditional, photographic feel, organic rather than synthetic. How important is technology to what you are doing, both technically and conceptually?

GH: Crucial, but I don’t think I have imposed decisions on my direction thematically or technologically. This work was enabled by digital possibilities and fuelled by my need to express. Suddenly I could weave a much more complex discourse than I could before. But it is my intention to accept reality as it is, not the way I would like it to be. I’ll explain: If I am limited by my camera, or by a certain paper, I will try to work within those constraints. Rather than limiting me this has opened up possibilities. If something is working, I don’t fix it. Digital output makes it possible to print photo-based images as “ink on paper” which has a resemblance to traditional processes like photogravure and photolithograph. I love how the image renders on cotton paper. I have enjoyed the use of technology but at the same time I am very conservative with it. I am slow to change things. Recently I’ve been thinking of printing smaller while technology increasingly makes it possible to print larger. I just like smaller prints.

HS: It appears that you access any pictorial vocabulary you feel drawn to: images you create yourself, images you find in books, in your environment. Are there some images you wouldn’t work with? What are the parameters you work with when pulling in visual content for your work?

GH: I would not use copyright protected images or the work of contemporary artists. This project, called A Book of Mirrors, has developed as a water stain would spread, from within, the parameter being defined by where the stain stops. I am watching it expand on its own. I think that if it is happening it is because there is an importance to it as a process and I do not impose limits on where it goes. Most of the images are not the product of an idea or concept that gets translated into a finished piece; they are more like the visual expression of an emotion. My intention is not to judge anything. When I recognise something emerging, I work with it, by concealing or revealing it. It feels like I am being guided through this process, like I am a vessel.

HS: There is strong tradition of Surrealism in Mexico, and the Surrealists worked in the philosophical terrain you are exploring. How do you think your upbringing in Mexico City might have manifested in your work?

GH: The production of the Surrealists has always been fascinating to me. Much of the cultural life of Mexico was influenced by the Surrealists, including the work of Alvarez Bravo amongst others. I was definitely aware of the Spanish heritage that came to Mexico City after the War. My grandfather was a hobbyist photographer, and he loved the work of a Spanish painter named Remedios Varo. I remember that she painted amazing, fantastical scenes with birds weaving starlight. My grandfather had books in his house of her work and he would take pictures of the details that he loved in her paintings and blow them up. His wife, Laura Cornejo, was an acquaintance of Tina Modotti and Edward Weston.

HS: There is also a sense of the devotional in your work. Folk-art milagros come to mind, and even alchemy. Can you talk about the mystic, spiritual quality in you work?

GH: I was brought up Catholic and definitely have a strong attraction to devotional imagery and Baroque art. I love the aesthetic sense with which figures are rendered in Catholic and Christian iconography. Devotional is a word I don’t use much because I associate it with organised religion. I am also drawn to the alchemists. In a way we are all seeking a connection to the divine within. I think this is the most basic drive of human existence, imbuing our lives with a sense of purpose. The tools we can use to achieve that: dreams, plants, intuition, meditation—I was interested in all of these before I realised I had something to say with my art.

HS: I am curious about your titles, which are mysterious and tend to loop the viewer back into a reconsideration of each image, but then don’t necessarily explain what you intend to reveal or express…

GH: I feel there is nothing casual about my titles. My intention is clear regarding what I want to say about a piece though it might be veiled. Generally I hint at a certain direction. For example, Don’t Follow the Wake is linked to a story I heard; there is no reason to spell it out. I know that the strength of what lives within the piece will reach some part of the viewer. I hope it makes a connection on an emotional level, providing an excuse to dream, for viewers to create their own stories, which are the ones they must pay attention to and decode, not mine. I sense that what I am doing is accessing material from the Collective Unconscious and the emotional connection is an intrinsic part of this process of recognition, turning the images into mirrors. The more individual the search the more universal it becomes. The phenomenon of life is like one big question mark that can’t be broken down into smaller parts; one just has to bow down to the experience of it.

TEXT BY: Heather Snider
Copy right pictures German Herrera

 

Youssef Nabil

January 11, 2018 EYEMAZING
nabil.jpg

From Cairo where he was born, to Rio, Venice, Havana, and Paris, where he’s shot many of his selfportraits, Youssef Nabil has developed a body of work that speaks of themes seemingly well beyond his years. His images – filled with the pain of parting, nostalgia, solitude and death – hark back to a past epoch and art form, steeped in the dreamy romanticism of the long-lost art of classic Egyptian cinema of the 1940s and 50s.

Nabil’s photography career began in 1992, when he met the late Egyptian-Armenian studio portrait artist Leon Boyadjian, widely known as Van Leo. The latter encouraged him to leave Egypt to seek inspiration and broaden his horizons. Between 1992 and 1998, Nabil learned the ropes as an assistant to fashion giants David LaChapelle in New York and MarioTestino in Paris. In 1999, he struck out on his own, doing editorial shots of Arab celebrities for Middle Eastern magazines. He also launched, in 2002, an ongoing project photographing women artists, including Nan Goldin, Tracey Emin and Louise Bourgeois. Recognition for his work quickly followed, with dozens of solo exhibitions worldwide, from Mexico City to Cape Town to Dubai. In 2003, he was awarded the Seydou Keita Prize for Portraiture at the African Biennial of Photography in Bamako. Nabil began the hand-painted self-portraits series, featured here, in 2003 while living in Paris, where he was invited by the French Ministry of Culture for an artist’s residency at the Cité Internationale des Arts. The series was displayed in Egypt for the first time in 2005 under the title Realities to Dreams. Nabil talked to Eyemazing about the emotions behind what he refers to as a “painted diary”.

Barbara Oudiz: There seem to be two almost opposite undercurrents in your self-portraits: on the one hand, a sense of optimistic yearning, a desire to go off in search of something that is perhaps just beyond the horizon, in photographs such as Looking out of the window, Sun in my eyes and I leave again. And at the

same time, there is a sort of pessimistic resignation, the suggestion that departing resembles death, as in My time to go and Hope to die in my sleep. Are these two emotions – yearning and resignation – in fact two ways of expressing the same sentiment?

Youssef Nabil: It is just the way I’ve always seen things; they go together like two faces of one coin. I think we always aim for something, we always want to reach or achieve something, but nothing is complete and nothing will stay the same. My self- portraits speak about my relation to my life and existence. I did them in different cities and each time I felt that I was just a visitor who would soon be leaving. My relation to my whole life is the same. For me, it is about coming to a place that is not yours then having to go.

BO: What does Realities to Dreams, the title you chose for the exhibition of your self-portraits held in 2005, evoke for you?

YN: I called the exhibition Realities to Dreams, because it is the way I always mix my dreams with my realities and my realities with my dreams. Life and death… Being with or away from the people I love is also the same for me. I think if you are a free spirit, all that doesn’t really matter.

BO: In what ways are your self-portraits inspired by the “golden age” of Egyptian cinema that thrived in Cairo some 60 to 70 years ago? Can the influence of this period and art form be felt in other projects of yours, or only in the self-portraits?

YN: All my work is somehow very connected. When I started my career I was very inspired by Egyptian cinema from the 40s and 50s that I used to watch a lot

on TV when I was a kid. I remember that I was always asking my mother about all the actors and where they were. Most of the time the answer was that they were all dead. I was in love with all these beautiful famous dead people. It did something to my subconscious and I wanted to meet the living ones. I wanted to photograph them, to have a part of them with me, keep them in my work, before they die or I die. My technique is also inspired by old Technicolor movies and old, hand-painted studio portraits. You can still feel all that in my other projects, including my self portraits.

BO: Can you tell us a little about your state of mind when you took them?

YN: The places I shot my self-portraits are places that I just happened to be visiting. Then I felt that at a specific moment I needed to make a self-portrait about a certain feeling I felt there. But I never really build them around a place; they are built more around a precise moment.

BO: You never make eye contact with the viewer in this series, indeed in many of your self-portraits your back is turned to the viewer. Why?

YN: When I photograph someone I become a sort of a voyeur, while in my self-portraits I let people watch me. I am an observer in these scenes, I’m very much aware of that, but also my self-portraits tell different stories, they are my most personal work. I never plan them really. Self-portraits come to me, I just feel that I need to say something at a certain moment and this is when I decide to do them.

BO: In your biography, it is said that Van Leo encouraged you to leave Egypt in the 1990s because he thought “photography as an art form was not sufficiently appreciated there.” Would you say that is still the case in Egypt today? If not, what has changed, and why?

YN: I think things will get better with time. It is difficult to be an artist in general, no matter what medium you are using. Van Leo was always telling me to go to the West, as he felt that my work would be more appreciated there. But things have changed since then in the Middle East in general, and there is a lot of interest right now in Middle Eastern contemporary art.

BO: You’ve been living in New York, I believe, since 2006. What does New York bring to your way of seeing or feeling compared to Paris, for example, or Cairo, or other cities?

YN: I’ve only lived in Paris and New York, and of course Cairo where I grew up. I have spent most of my life in Cairo. I only left five years ago; first to go to Paris, which I knew already from the time I was working with Mario Testino. I moved to New York two years ago, which I also knew from when I worked with David LaChapelle. I live in Harlem now. A lot of artists live around here. New York is the best place to be if you are an artist – though London and Berlin are good too. But Paris for me is the most beautiful city in the world.

TEXT BY BARBARA OUDIZ  © picture: Youssef Nabil

Representing galleries: Michael Stevenson, Cape Town and The ThirdLine, Dubaï

 

Gian Luca Groppi

November 10, 2017 EYEMAZING
la ragazza in scatola ( 1 - sx ) 300dpi.jpg la ragazza in scatola ( 2 - dx ) 300dpi.jpg

As a modern storyteller, Groppi mixes cards and genres, giving his works a caustic lyricism that deliberately does not offer solutions or panaceas, but is rather an attempt at trying to shake us from widespread social and emotional inertia.

The analogue photographs, resulting from a lucid and disillusioned conceptuality, work on de coup de théatre or as in the earlier illustrious works of Duchamp and Man Ray, play on the double linguistic and semantic meanings: they also focus our attention on the vices, falsehoods and stereotypes of society, on the compulsion to appear, bringing to light the widespread existential malaise eating away at energies and values.

The characters, removed from their usual context, reinvent themselves through the careful direction and the complicit eye of the author: affectless figures, prey to a communicative entropy that freezes gestures and looks, often emerge from these photo sets. The slick appeal of managers, salesmen and models then starts to fracture and crack wide open, family ties become inextricable shackles, the bright surface of reality loses its enamel and slips into the illogical territories of surreal logic.

These are not simple poses, but interpretations and mise-en-scene that shy away from elaborate sets in favour of a few wisely chosen elements: a disposable razor becomes the tool that strips away the mask of hypocrisy, the medicine samples of the Informatore Scientifico (“Scientific Representative”) become a macabre boomerang, girls “sold” daily by the media and magazines, are nothing more than do-it-yourself kits, a collection of parts to assemble and dismantle at will.

Each diptych becomes consideration, an open story, behavioural analysis; from the succession of works, drenched with citations and cultural references, the narrative coherence and stylistics of the author become clear, but above all we understand his love for photography: a treasure trove of projects, techniques and theories but especially a goddess, friend and confidant.

TEXT BY LORELLA KLUN

©pictures Gian Luca Groppi
Represented by Vision QuesT gallery

 

Sandra Sue

September 26, 2017 EYEMAZING
SELFPORTRAIT 4.jpg

Sandra Sue’s work is so enigmatic that it defies categorization. Even describing it as photography would be untrue. Closer to painting in terms of how the final composition is conceived, it is explorative both psychologically and artistically – leaving you wondering about the complexities of her creative process.

Defining her work proved a challenge for Sue herself, until she coined the word “digitography”. “I’ve always had difficulties in naming what I do and I finally came to adopt this word to define it,” she explains. “For it is in a way digital writing, not only in the computerized sense, but also in the physical sense. I work with my hands, and in the end what I do is translated to a numerical language.”

Photography is the starting-point. After taking the initial photographs, Sue scans them on to her computer, adding images of light and abstract perspectives, and then “painting” over them on Photoshop. Post production, sometimes only a residue of the original remains. Chiselled faces now appear powdered, bronzed, ashed, chalked. The contours have been partially erased through layers and layers of digital painting, until the person’s identity is obscured. Brush-strokes and flashes of colour, resembling smears of blood, veneers of wood, streaks of paint and rubbings of gold, have transformed the surface. The realism of the photograph has been replaced by the non-realism of the digitograph, with elemental abstraction melting into the portrait.
 
Illustrating how this effect is achieved, Sue says, “I photograph lights during the night, with a low speed so what I get is like a brush-stroke of light. Then I use that brush-stroke on top of a face, I erase parts of it in a special way and combine this image with the face so that it ends up looking like a textile texture or a wooden element. It is not easy, it takes a lot of work and people just don’t realise that you can use anything and manipulate it with imagination to make it look like something you want.”

Sue’s experimental techniques are extremely forward-looking, but she looks backwards for inspiration about how to use light and human expressions. It is Renaissance artists such as Titian, Mantegna and Massaccio that bear a pictorial influence on her work.

Born in Middlesex near London, Sue – who has a Spanish mother and an American father – has been living in Spain since she was four. After studying photography at the Spectrum gallery in Zaragoza and at the Centre of Video Studies (CEV) in Madrid, she worked as a freelance photographer for ten years before starting to teach Photoshop and digital photography at the CEV.

The fascination with double realities is also linked to the fact that she has an identical twin sister. “Being a twin affected me ever since people started regarding us as a team and bought the same gift for both of us or expected us to be the same person,” she says. This, in turn, led to experimenting with dualities. “I would mix half of my face with half of my twin sister’s face to see what sort of individual would turn out. The subject of my being a ‘half’ of some abstract identity has always been part of my work.”

While her sister became a painter, Sue decided to paint digitally to create an invented version of a photographic reality. Her curiosity about the possible outcomes of combining “the other” with “self” is prevailing.

“In a conventional sense of the word, a painted or photographic image called a ‘self-portrait’ would give us the mirror-image of an individual. Nothing is for me further away from the individual than a stopped-in-time image that ignores the movement, the laughter, the character, the way the eyes shine, how this individual uses words, what books he reads, what activity he uses to make life worth living, etc. For me, it is all this that gives a portrait of the artist and his work. This series of torn men, drowned in a sea of unrecognisable elements that suggest vague disasters are part of me.  They are part of my portrait, my entire and ‘perfect’ portrait and in this sense I called them ‘self-portraits’.”

Significantly, Sue studied philosophy before becoming an artist. Preoccupations about identity, and consciousness versus unconsciousness as the mind alternates between day and night, permeate her work. “I have always had baroque dreams with indescribable images in which I was sometimes a woman, sometimes a man, but was always an individual in extreme situations.  Being a pacific and happy person in my conscious life, violence and panic is something common every night.”

Her other motivation in calling these images ‘self-portraits’ was to play with expectations, tricking us into seeing a woman where there is a man. Sue likes to invite her viewers to contemplate her images, and decide for themselves what we see before them. It relates to the vital ownership of thoughts and opinions. Asked about her future projects, Sue replies, “I want to be the owner of my silences.  My next project is to sit on a chair and watch the wind move the branches of the trees.”
 

TEXT BY ANNA SANSOM

©picture Sandra Sue
Courtesy Galería Begoña Malone, Madrid.

 

 

Mona Kuhn

August 20, 2017 EYEMAZING
kuhn.jpg

The formal appeal and graceful nudity in Mona Kuhn’s photographs are an enticing veneer but not the core of what her images are really about. While on the simplest level, they appear to be a glorified tribute to the physical, they slyly communicate through an intuitive symbolism about far more elusive human qualities. Kuhn uses beauty to lure the viewer into an engagement with her work and then slips out of the room leaving us on our own to interpret an undefined narrative of emotions. She asks us to confront and decipher a range of glances, gestures, and alliances taken from real life and literally stripped down to their essence. What initially seems to be about the purely physical is in the end the embodiment of relationships and emotional communication. The viewer is a voyeur in Kuhn’s investigation of how people interact with one another and use their physical selves in social contexts. People watch each other and pose for each other; they emulate and subconsciously echo one another in mood and movement, playing out a complex mix of emotions and needs that are the infrastructure of friendships and interpersonal relationships.

Kuhn appears to inhabit a world similar in many ways to that of painter Elizabeth Peyton, whose work Kuhn has said she admires. There is an autobiographical subtext to both artists’ work and like Peyton, Kuhn depicts the sinewy, androgynous people who are in her close social or emotional sphere with a vision that is both personal and slightly larger than life. Though Kuhn never appears directly in her photographs, her subjects are friends and they mirror her emotions, relationships, and betray her social demographic. Kuhn creates a distinct mood with genuine warmth of spirit that unifies her work and gently reveals a layer of humanity that normally remains hidden not only under one’s clothes, but also within people’s social patterns and busy lives.

Text by: Heather Snider
©picture Mona Kuhn, Jerome 1998

 

David Goldblatt

July 25, 2017 EYEMAZING

What can a gorgeously crisp photo of a solitary Dutch Cape home in the Limpopo convey about South Africa’s apartheid? What does a sharp image of shadow and light on Coetzee Street in Middelburg, Eastern Cape, reveal about South Africa’s race relations?  Or a gorgeous rugged canyon in the Richtersveld? A simple garden and home in Boksburg? Within these images – sparkling, clear and defined – lies the complex history of South Africa’s apartheid through the eyes of David Goldblatt, the country’s eminent documentary photographer. Goldblatt’s images are not of apartheid’s street clashes and broken bodies or any of the more dramatic subjects of documentary photography. Rather than capture the moments of conflict, Goldblatt’s images ask us to look deeper to their cause.

But to get his work for what it is – a detailed study and a kind of love letter to the country where he has lived for almost 80 years – you have to look beyond the physical beauty of his images. These are not just photos of churches and landscapes and people; contained within the stillness of the structures and monuments and places are the complex stories of people and a country struggling to find their place. Goldblatt works like a photographic anthropologist, and his life-long oeuvre serves as a multi-layered ethnography of South Africa: the land, the architecture, the Afrikaans landowners, black nomadic farmers, wealthy suburbanites, black migrant workers… His vision of South African is dynamic and comprehensive.

This means that for those of us who do not know South Africa like Goldblatt does, and there are few who do, the words that accompany Goldblatt’s images are important. In Intersections Intersected, the extensive text and captions that accompany each photo are required to get the full meaning of the image. For example, what might seem like a melancholy swath of dry farmland, if you look closer, is actually a landscape dotted in 1500 lavatories built in anticipation of the forced removal of a Mgwali farming community. Each landscape and that which is built on it carries a deliberate message for Goldblatt (as he once said in an interview, “Primary is the land, its division, possession, use, misuse. How we have shaped it and how it has shaped us.”) The photos, to have their full impact, require further inquiry.

One of the unexpected pleasures of getting to know Goldblatt’s work is exposure to the geography of South Africa. Each of his photos has a place name in the title. Terms unfamiliar to most non-South Africans hint at the diverse cultural history of the land. With names like the Transvaal, the Karoo, the Ciskei Bantustan, the Qwa Qwa and the Phuthaditjhaba, the titles of Goldblatt’s photos make you want to lay out a map of South Africa and trace out Goldblatt’s photographic journey over the years.

In terms of identity, Goldblatt is himself a kind of intersection. The son of Jewish Lithuanian parents who fled to South Africa to escape religious oppression, Goldblatt plays an unusual role in his country. His Jewish ancestry placed him in the religious minority, yet he himself claims to be uncertain about faith. He was also a white man in a racially segregated society. Not a part of the white Christian leadership and not a part of the black majority, Goldblatt is a South African outsider, yet one who is devoted to his country – so much so that he did not leave when the violence became extreme in the 1980s, a time when many white non-supporters of apartheid chose to leave.

In many ways, Goldblatt’s development as a photographer is inseparable from the politics that were taking over the country when he was a teenager. In 1948, when he was a senior in high school, he first became obsessed with photography. This was the same year that the National Party won the parliamentary elections and South Africa suddenly found itself under the leadership of white supremacists who believed they were predestined to rule the country. The mood change in South Africa was overwhelming; Goldblatt and his family and friends were thrust into a political climate of fear and foreboding. And Goldblatt decided to document the changes taking over his country.

At first his journey into photography was marred by setbacks. He attempted to photograph the political events happening around him, but found that he lacked both the composure and desire to be at the heart of the action and work under tense and violent circumstances. Even though the action-based documentary photography was the preferred style of the time, Goldblatt trusted his gut – he recognised that was not the type of photographer he wanted to be.

Uncertain about his future, Goldblatt retreated into university studies, family photographs and studying the craft of photography. In the 1960s, as apartheid intensified, Goldblatt found himself called to recording the quotidian realities of ordinary people and places. He writes, “…I had begun to realise an involvement with this place and the people among whom I lived that would not be stilled and that I needed to grasp and probe. I wanted to explore the specifics of our lives, not in theories but in the grit and taste and touch of things, and then bring those specifics into that particular and peculiar coherence that the camera both enables and demands.”

So Goldblatt avoided the police batons and protests of apartheid and threw himself into documenting the day-to-day existence of the people who lived through it. He felt particularly drawn to the structures of apartheid – its building and monuments and remains of resettlement plans. He writes, “It was to the quiet and commonplace where nothing ‘happened’ and yet all was contained and immanent that I was most drawn.”

A key step in Goldblatt’s evolution as a vernacular photographer was learning to use the South African light. “…I had often been troubled by an unease with the tonal qualities of my photographs. They were quite lacking in the subtle gradations of work that I saw reproduced in magazines and books from Europe and the United States. Now I began to realise that in trying to emulate those qualities I had been false to our light. In much of South Africa the light is hard-edged and intense and integral to my sense of place. It is difficult to convey the excitement of this simple perception. Instead of fighting the light I began to embrace and work gladly within it. Congruence became possible between my awareness of what I knew so intimately and the photographs I attempted of it.” The power of stark shadow and light is what makes Goldblatt’s aesthetic so distinctly South African.

For a non-Christian with uncertain religious beliefs, Goldblatt has been particularly intrigued by churches, the ultimate physical expression of people’s faith. He became an expert in the architecture of the Afrikaner Protestant churches, whose leaders were often apartheid advocates. These churches seemed to embody the complexity and blindness of the times. Many of the active church members genuinely believed in the justness of apartheid and felt that their plan was good for whites and blacks alike. The architecture of the churches built during the apartheid, bold and towering in Goldblatt’s photographs, physically expressed this belief in their entitlement to rule the country. These structures and the hundreds of others that Goldblatt photographed tell us much about South Africa. As Goldblatt wrote, “The photographs…are about structures in South Africa which gave expression to or were evidence of some of the forces that shaped our society before the end of apartheid…our structures often declare quite nakedly, yet eloquently, what manner of people built them, and what they stood for.”

Goldblatt’s images make a strong argument why documentary photography should encompass more than the decisive, dramatic moment. By being subtler, Goldblatt permits a more nuanced, complex reading of the situation. When there is a photo with an overt story, of a white police officer beating a black man, for example, the immediate message is spelled out. But Goldblatt’s photos more readily speak to the complexity and background of a situation, something that is not always easily reduced to clear villains or heroes. Goldblatt’s subtlety allows a fuller reading of South Africa’s history, and perhaps brings us closer to a true understanding.

Text by Clayton Maxwell

© picture David Goldblatt, Man with an injured arm.  Hillbrow, Johannesburg, June, 1972, Black and while photograph on matte paper
Courtesy the artist and Goodman Gallery, Johannesburg

 

Jury Rupin

June 28, 2017 EYEMAZING

In the year that saw the American satellite Explorer launch into orbit and the Russian Sputnik fall from it; Imre Nagy hanged for treason against Communism and Fidel Castro’s army galvanised for it, Jury Rupin took his first photograph.

Using a little-known bakelite model called a Smena, a low-cost 35 mm manufactured in the Soviet Union by LOMO, he snapped his grandmother feeding chickens in the yard of their house in Krasny Liman, a small town in the Donetsk region of the Ukraine, about 200 km from Kharkov. “When I was young” he would later recall “I never slept with the door closed. People just came and went. The house was heated with a traditional Russian wood-burning stove. They would put me into a barrel so they knew where I was, to stop me wandering off.”

For 40 years prior to his death in October last year, Rupin photographed the stuff from his day to day life. First an engineer, then a freelance news and feature photographer, his archive reveals an extraordinarily vivid portrait of Soviet history.

With five other photographers, including the illustrious Boris Mikhailov, he formed an experimental artistic collective called ‘Vremia’, or ‘Time’. For two years they succeeded in operating under the radar of the KGB, testing the limits of each others imagination: “We had a very lively exchange of ideas, almost to the point of fisticuffs. The neighbours once threatened to call the police because we were arguing so loudly!“ But good fortune was not to last. Their enforced disbandment, coupled with the ensuing harassment he suffered, goes some way to explaining why Rupin’s work has not until now been seen beyond the borders of the then USSR: “They stopped accepting packets from us at the post office when we were trying to send photographs abroad. They knew everything, they were watching me. My photographs were returned torn and defaced.”

He was born during what he gently termed “the hungry years.” 1946 saw severe drought for the Ukraine. Quite aside from the task of restoring order to the region after the devastation of the Second World War, they were forced to deliver a quota of 7.2 million tons of grain; estimates of the number of people who died range from 100,000 to upwards of one million. Exact figures are impossible because famine was not acknowledged by the Soviet regime; they would simply declare a census invalid if it showed a violent drop in population.

“We used to fry bread pancakes using fish oil,” Rupin told me. “My father couldn’t bear the smell; he used to have to leave the house when they were cooking. But I hadn’t known anything else so I enjoyed them. Maybe that’s why I survived.”

Rupin’s story is stitched inextricably to the story of the regime under which he lived. Each of his photographs conveys something of the ideologies the system propagated, or is a lyrical sabotaging of them.

These were years more “stick than carrot”, when the sophisticated instrument of the KGB warred against “harmful attitudes” and “hostile acts” via an intricate network of espionage. “For ordinary people who didn’t raise their heads above the parapet, who went about their ordinary business, attended all the meetings and demonstrations, things were okay” Rupin recognised. ”But it was bad for people like me; for artists, creative people who wanted to achieve something. The KGB were frightened we were going to destroy the Soviet societal structure.”

A contemporary article in Time magazine shows just how real the threat to dissenting intellectuals was: “Some are expelled, as outspoken Novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn was in 1974; others, like Nobel Peace Prizewinner Andrei Sakharov, are sent into internal exile; still others, like Sergei Batovrin, spokesman for an independent peace group, are shut away in psychiatric hospitals. Finally, there is the Gulag, which, according to human rights activists, holds some 1,000 known political prisoners today, though the count might be three times as large.”

Both Rupin and Mikhailov were regularly arrested and detained. They were always freed, but each arrest was scratched inkily against their names. Eventually the KGB used this record to have Mikhailov fired from his state-run employer. Because Rupin was freelance, he continued to find work, but “they wouldn’t leave my wife’s parents in peace: always questioning them: what was I doing, always trying to get them to persuade me to stop.”

As always, censorship proved to be the crucible in which artists like Rupin thrived: “The Soviet time enabled an opposition to develop. That was its biggest advantage. At its peak there were photographers and artists who existed only because they were opposed to official art.”

Rupin learnt his craft during his last year of military service. His parents sent him the money for a Zenit 3M, the first Soviet mirror camera with interchangeable lenses. “It was mostly taking pictures of the top brass, particularly one major who liked to have his portrait done, but I also had to cover the routine line-ups and parades.” That year Zenit had produced a line commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution. It seemed the Party would go to great lengths to ensure photographers remembered to capture appropriate material each time their shutter blinked.

By the time he left the army, his family had been moved to a three room flat on the other side of town, a down-at-heel area full of tall blocks. He escaped to technical college in nearby Slavyansk. “At school we’d had an excursion to the rail depot and I liked watching how they built engines, so decided to study mechanical engineering. My parents were shocked [his father taught Russian literature] but I went ahead and did it anyway. We were sent out on day release arrangements to factories. I worked on this huge piece of equipment that rolled out metal sheets into cylindrical shapes and then welded them to build enormous cisterns.”

He continued to photograph. “At the end of my second year, I was sent to build cowsheds on a construction brigade [students were made to work during their vacations]. It was a tiny, remote village with one bath house.” He made a series of photographs of the men inside.
Oblivious to the camera, they seem engaged in a silent, private, elaborate dance. The sheen on their skin from the steam combined with the blur Rupin introduced by slowing his exposure turns them almost to clay. They could be figures on a Classical ceramic, but they are also at rest easily in the studies of bathers loved by Cezanne, an artist Rupin revered.

Unsurprisingly it was nude photography the KGB was particularly concerned about. “They used to call me in for little chats and tell me I should stop; that it wasn’t a proper thing for a Soviet man to be doing. So I tried to find ways of fooling them. I turned the bathhouse pictures into graphic works by solarising them until it seemed as if the subjects were not undressed.”

It was hard for Rupin to perfect this genre of photograph. “I didn’t have a proper studio of my own and I didn’t want to ask friends to lend me theirs, in case my work compromised them. So Boris and I took to photographing nude subjects outside, at night, where it was deserted.”

Gypsy Nude is one of these. “She was very brave; she took off her clothes for a photographer at a time when getting undressed for an artist was considered a bad thing. We went into the middle of nowhere and came up with this. I like it because it’s natural, alive. I prefer it to a set-up, studio nude.”

It was a picture of a naked woman on a town square at night that eventually closed the Vremia group. Rupin had sent the print to Poland for an exhibition, only to have it sent to the Polish KGB, and back to their Kharkov headquarters.

The exchange of ideas between Rupin and other photographers is fascinating, significantly so since they were often operating under the wire. Yaroslavl Tram Stop, with its red-coated trio picks up on Mikahilov’s Red Series. Both are playful, snapshot-style pictures which draw our attention to random, red objects, at the same time quietly suggesting years of Soviet history. ”That idea was in the air: red was everywhere. Boris and I just used to stroll around carrying our cameras.”

The two continued to work together after Vremia had disbanded, travelling to the south; the Baltic States; Moscow. On one expedition they met Vitas Lutskus. “He was the number one photographer in our eyes, his photographs astonished us. They were huge; nobody was producing work like that, 50 x 70, superb quality.” The three holidayed together in the Crimea, covering themselves in mud for a series of joyful photographs that are all the more poignant knowing Lutskus would throw himself out of a window not so long after.

Through working for Tass Ratu (Radio and Television Ukraine), the Krasnaya Znamya (Red Banner) newspaper and a publishing house called Prapor, Rupin travelled the length and breadth of the Ukraine oblast, recording a now defunct way of life.
The series Sorochincy Fair and November 7 are a precious example of his gift for reportage. In peppery shades of grey they log chance moments where posture, gesture and gaze crystallise into something astonishing. There is an incredible sense of time frozen in every stroke of his shutter. If you look at several of them one after the other, they mirror the elastic way we look around us. Pioneer looks rather more staged. “Such serious little faces, vowing to always be ready.” The movement was then at its height, boasting some 25 million members.
It is difficult not to call Rodchenko to mind. Like his predecessor, Rupin captures the vim of the Soviet ideal: the healthy body engaged in worthwhile pursuits–parades, fairs, pioneer groups. He has a superlative eye for peculiar distortions and is unafraid to use it–tilting his viewfinder, finding reflections, shadows. There is a real sense of his trying to find a means of understanding his world by trying it out from every angle.
Maya Mayatskaya, an animal trainer and Roitman the clown, are portraits from a series he shot of the Kharkov circus. At the time, the circus was seen on a par, even above, the ballet and opera: it was a truly egalitarian form of entertainment, enjoyed by all regardless of language or education. Rupin struck up a friendship with Roitman, who happened to be the Party Organiser and responsible for the moral conduct of every circus employee. “To convey this, I pictured him with a copy of Pravda on the table next to him.”

Rupin was proudest of his reportage. “If a photograph gets anywhere near showing life as it really is, that is the highest achievement. Photographs from 50 years ago, by Cartier Bresson, by Dorothea Lang; they are encyclopaedic-one photograph tells the whole story. Consider Lang’s White Angel Breadline. She’s snapped him with his back to the crowd, he’s standing like so. It’s fantastic because it shows everything that was happening in America at that time. It was the 30’s, there was hunger, unemployment and you can see it all in that picture.”

“Years ago I would have answered differently; I would have said my creative work meant more to me, because it took so much time and trouble to produce. At that time I wanted to engage in the process of photography. I sat there day after day with negatives. That was the interesting thing, the difficulty. That, and that like every photographer, I wanted to be different. But now I realise that the amount of work doesn’t necessarily dictate the value of a piece. To be honest the times when I took a camera with me and just photographed what I liked along the way, that really worked. Life is life, it’s what it is.”

TEXT BY LUCY DAVIES
©picture Jury Rupin, Sauna 1972

Ai Weiwei

May 8, 2017 EYEMAZING

The Visual Rhizomes of a Social Conscience

If the cliché that a picture is worth a thousand words has any meaning, that meaning is grounded in the rhizome of history, the spreading roots which come together and form a network of associations at the site of the image like a nerve cell. Chinese artist Ai Weiwei's gift—illuminated by the impressive array of 230 of photographs taken during his sojourn in the New York East Village, and selected from over 10,000 images archived by Three Shadows Photography Arts Centre in Beijing—is the keen sense of social and cultural acuity that enabled him, even as an outsider, to capture seminal moments that root his images in the dense, chaotic network of meanings, ideas, conflicts, struggles, aspirations, and contradictory values that embody the life world of a particular place in time.

Ai Weiwei was born in 1957 in Beijing, but spent much of his childhood in the remote northwestern province of Xinjiang where his father, Ai Qing—a prominent poet—was among the many intellectuals sent to engage in labour reform as a result of purges following the Anti-Rightist Campaign in 1957.

Ai Weiwei's staunch independence, resilience and unrepentant critical stance towards the state of society and the structure of power, were forged in the crucible of early childhood experiences. Watching his intellectual father persecuted for writing "the wrong kind of poetry," forced to clean toilets, and not allowed to write for two decades, left a scathing impression on the young artist. It was not until 20 years later that his father was exonerated and the family was able to return to some semblance of a normal life in Beijing after the Cultural Revolution had ended, and Reform and Opening had begun.

As Western culture began to trickle back into China in the late 70s, young artists like Ai Weiwei were electrified by the variety of expressive forms in circulation, as well as tempted to test the boundaries of acceptable expression in public in the new era of tentative reform. Art became a major part of this process of cultural testing that helped broaden the horizons of the State-dominated public sphere. In 1978, Ai Weiwei was among the small group of experimental artists who founded China's first avant-garde art collective, "The Stars" (which included Huang Rui, Ma Desheng, Wang Keping, and other major artists still noteworthy today). At a time when people were still wary, following the tumultuous and repressive decade of the Cultural Revolution, the daring and unauthorised public exhibitions and activities on the part of "The Stars" was of seminal cultural significance, and played a role in setting in motion a generation of visual pioneers who began experimenting with Western art forms and media, while trying to come to terms with China's recent past and to rethink the role that art and cultural production could play in shaping the trajectory of its future.

When the opportunity arose to study in the US, Ai Weiwei set off for New York in 1981, spending time in Berkeley as well, before returning to Beijing to be by his father's side on his deathbed in 1993. His experience abroad fortified his critical nature, and was supplemented by the quintessential American belief in the power of the individual to shape society. Since his return to Beijing, Ai Weiwei has consistently played the role of contentious, public intellectual and member of China's cultural vanguard in the capacity of critic, curator, architectural designer, and innovative multidisciplinary artist.

As one of the most high-profile Chinese contemporary artists alive today, and recipient of the 2008 Lifetime Achievement Award in Chinese Contemporary Art, Ai Weiwei's work has been shown at major exhibitions including the Venice Biennale (1999), 2nd Guangzhou Triennial (2005), 2006 Biennale of Sydney, Documenta12 (2007), Liverpool Biennale (2008), and a solo show at the Mori Art Museum is slated for summer (2009). His role in conceiving the design of the Olympic "Bird's Nest" (the Beijing National Stadium) in collaboration with Herzog & de Meuron, his co-collaborators in the Venice Biennale of Architecture (2008), has earned him a name that resonates far beyond the reaches of the art world, but it is his brio as public intellectual that is perhaps the pulse that reverberates throughout the corpus of his work.

While Ai Weiwei's installations and sculptures often feature ready-mades that he has transformed with a conceptual twist, such as shoes, furniture, urns, antique doors, bicycle parts, and more, hinting at the deep impact of Duchamp on his work, it is his photography that reveals most profoundly the presence of the person within the artist, the identity of those two things, and the extent to which he takes the role of public intellectual seriously.

RongRong (Three Shadows co-founder and celebrated photographer in his own right) had been a close friend since Ai Weiwei was actively involved with the performance art scene at the Beijing East Village where RongRong lived in 1993-1994, and spearheaded the labour-intensive project of archiving the over 10,000 negatives that had been taken during the decade or so in America.

In Ai Weiwei's Bleeding Protestor: Tompkins Square Park Riots, the rivulets of blood streaking down the face of a pony-tailed man, darkening his T-shirt in a spreading stain, look more like experimental ink wash than police brutality. Yet the outraged glare, the mouth cocked open in mid-chant, and the fury, or quiet horror of his fellow protestors is anything but artifice. These men and women are for real. It is 1988 and this riot is the culmination of months of tension in New York City over the rights of the urban poor to shelter. The park had become a magnet for homeless people, and after each police roust, the legions of hungry, tired and poor, would re-encamp in ever greater numbers, supported by a vocal coalition of progressive citizens disgusted with the go-go 80s shameless, selfish materialism, gentrification and disregard for those unwilling or unable to ascend the social ladder. When protestors ignored the police curfew, the officers responded with indiscriminant violence, and the once-peaceful protest ignited into a raging riot that drew condemnation of police brutality across society.

Images of glorious, bouffanted drag queens, reinventing Diana Ross' legendary "I'm Coming Out," during Wigstock in 1990, root us into an emerging gay rights movement that is still one of the major civil rights issues of our time. The specter of homeless people sleeping beneath lucrative, commissioned public art works, speaks of the contradictions in an economic system rooted in unsustainable, endless consumption (until that consumption comes to a sudden end and we find ourselves where we are now). And the angry protests against the first US Gulf War in 1990 remind us of the presence of the past in our collective present and future.

Ai Weiwei is sometimes portrayed as playful punk, slick manoeuvrer, even swaggering ego. At odds with these glib portrayals, however, is the fearless earnestness and trenchant sensitivity revealed in the continuity between his preoccupations as a young man incessantly shooting photographs while living the New York East Village, and his activities since returning to Beijing. He played a mentoring role in the performance art hotbed known as the Beijing East Village, until the crackdown that dispersed the community in mid-94. His samizdat publications of the White, Gray, and Black Cover Books (1994-1997) offered critical discourse and introduced then-unknown seminal artists. In 2000, he co-curated defiantly uncommercial works at the landmark Fuck Off group exhibition in Shanghai. After helping design the Olympic "Bird's Nest," he became an outspoken critic of the urban "cleansing" that flushed the labourers who had built the New Beijing and Olympic facilities out of the city, like detritus, before the Games. And his prolific blog entries, rife with wrathful judgments upon the pathologies of our times, alongside the endless parade of documentary photographs that Ai Weiwei compiles almost compulsively, provide a symmetrical textual counterpoint to the enormous body of photography from the New York years and beyond.

In spite of his meteoric rise in recent years, seemingly mirroring the skyrocketing fortunes of Chinese art in general, Ai Weiwei is anything but a metonym for mainstream Chinese contemporary art, and attempts to portray him this way, miss the point—and the power—of his work and role as public intellectual. And while his sculptures, installations, and interventions have been showcased worldwide to critical acclaim, it is this newly unveiled and vast body of photography that offers the clearest metonym of the artist himself.

In an art scene that has grown systematically averse to genuine political critique—a hangover collectively shared by the broad mass of society and much of the intelligentsia—Ai Weiwei's pointed invective against social injustice and abuses of power is unsettling. In contrast many of the China auction-house darlings discovered in the mid-90s, that foreigners (the only market for contemporary art at the time) fetishised easily-recognisable, easily-digestible, iconically "Chinese" political symbols, were by the new millennium well-fed, well-shod, complacent assembly lines, churning out their own "brands"—Chairman Mao; red stars; cute girls in Red Guard uniforms and pigtails; sad-eyed families rendered uniform by political oppression; masked faces that bespoke a tragic double-life under communism, all popified versions of cultural revolution iconography mismatched with Western brands. This became so deeply entrenched in the maintenance of the status quo that it is now perverse to look to their work for critical optics and subversive sentiment.

Indeed, since the mid-90s, China's art scene has been an environment where genuine political critique (as opposed to manipulative foreigner-wanking) was seen as passé (so late 80s!), even naïve, and the province of the foolish hornet's nest-stirring few who hadn't figured out that "to get rich [really] is glorious," and the most vanguard expression of patriotic pride in the fatherland.

In this context, Ai Weiwei's New York photographs offer a prescient visual harmony to his blunt pronouncements about the character of cultural production and art in today's China—"still the subservient accessory or sacrificial object of politics"—and the role of art and the artist caught in the closing wedge between post-totalitarian State and globalised, mendacious market—"we live in an era in which the system of values and the possibilities of critical judgment are extraordinarily chaotic and confused," he declaims. Even so, he sees a refusal to cede for speech and action in the public sphere and the power of individuals to shape the course of history.

When asked if he worries about the danger of becoming a casualty of repression like his father he offers a shrug and a smile. "The way I see it," he says, "this is my life, I don't have a second life, and I don't have a second kind of life. I think that in this respect, every person has a responsibility.

TEXT BY MAYA KÓVSKAYA

Courtesy Three Shadows Photography Art Center in Beijing

 

Chema Madoz

April 25, 2017 EYEMAZING

Spanish photographer Chema Madoz has been photographing ordinary objects for more than 20 years. His refined black and white photographs show common objects that have been craftily manipulated by Madoz himself, placed out of their original context and joined together to create a new reality before photographing them. It’s visual poetry.

This world of visual paradoxes is, indeed, a celebration of photography. Madoz creates his peculiar objects only to photograph them; he doesn’t exhibit or use them afterwards, they exist exclusively for the camera. These (re)contextualised objects charge Madoz’s photographs with symbols, metaphors and double meanings. Madoz constructs from these objects a new fictionalised reality and documents its ephemeral existence.

Madoz photographs a genre that is as ancient as art itself. Still-life has been a focus for artists since cave paintings and has also been a recurrent theme in photography: William Henry Fox Talbot, Emmanuel Sougez, Joel-Peter Witkin, Wolfgang Tillmans or Jeff Wall, among an endless list, have photographed still-life. But Madoz’s photographs (re)present the genre with a distinctive rhetoric. As Cristian Caujolle points out: “Madoz’s work is articulated by deceptive objects which, behind their regular appearance, hide a strangeness which creates a new appreciation of them.” According to Caujolle, that new appreciation is what stops Madoz’s photographs from being traditional still-life.

In fact, what is important in Madoz’s work is not we see but what we don’t see. Not what is shown but the way in which Madoz’s photographs introduce and use different elements. Madoz’s photographs need our participation to be complete. They force us to think twice about what we see, and there, in our intellect, they are finally finished and fulfilled. That demand for our participation, it could be said, impedes them from being still. Rather than depict still-life, Madoz produces “still-alive” images.

The very first thing we do when we see a photograph is to look for the narrative, the story, and the argument. Paradoxically, what constitutes the true essence of any photograph is what is hidden or is not shown, what is left for our interpretation and imagination. We look through Madoz’s photographs but suddenly we realise some oddity within them, and we look at them more thoughtfully. Once we have examined Madoz’s photographs we don’t have to look at them again, we just have to think of them; they are installed and anchored in our minds with their complex simplicity. Madoz’s photographs are not made only to be seen; they are also made to be thought about, meditated on, and therefore to be, in all senses, contemplated. And that is precisely why Madoz’s images are so extraordinary: his visual paradoxes need our deduction, our meditation; they are created to be performed and concluded in our minds.

And this is where Madoz’s photographs in truth work, not on the paper, but within our intellectual engagement. They are instruments for thinking and reflecting. The tension between what the eye sees and what the brain reads makes us, as viewers, an essential element of Madoz’s work.

As viewers, we look for resemblance in Madoz’s photographs, we see what is there, and how it is, but we also contrast it with what we know. If Madoz’s photographs work as a deception is not because they cheat on us, but because we let ourselves be taken in. And we do that because we misread them at first glance; but we soon realise it and stop misreading them, to read more carefully what is really there in the photograph, as it is, and not how we think it should be or how we thought it was. Indeed, Madoz’s photographs are stunning because that first misreading, distraction and confusion, provoked by Madoz’s dexterity, constitutes their very essence.

Madoz’s photographs are titled Untitled, which is itself a paradox. In fact, by titling his photographs Untitled, what Madoz does is to paradoxically, (un)title his photographs. Madoz plays with the (visual) poetry of language and the complex simplicity of his (re) contextualised (re) presentations which, via resemblance and distraction, are performed in our intellect, leading us into a state of not only dual contemplation but of interaction; giving us, in any case, something we did not have before.

TEXT BY PEDRO J. VICENTE MULLOR

© picture VEGAP-Chema Madoz, Untitled 2005

Alexander Rodchenko

April 14, 2017 EYEMAZING

“We don’t see what we’re looking at,” Rodchenko wrote in 1928. “We don’t see marvellous perspectives – foreshortening and the positioning of objects. We, who have been taught to see the inculcated, must discover the world of the visible. We must revolutionise our visual thinking.”
While Rodchenko led a revolution in the art of photography, he also used photography to promote social revolution in Bolshevik Russia. And therein lies his trouble—he weathered the contradictions and conflicts of being an independent, visionary artist who, in the end, was forced to stick to the party line or suffer.

In the early twenties, as a leader of the Russian Avant-garde and Constructivist movements, Rodchenko created art that celebrated the ideals of the Russian Revolution—art that was, in Rodchenko’s words: “the inventing or perfecting of something, rather than a reflection or portrayal.” When the original visions of a better society collapsed into a nightmare under Stalin, Rodchenko’s work was criticized as “bourgeois” and his career was sabotaged.

It is impossible to entirely separate Rodchenko’s revolutionary photography from the revolutionary times in which he worked—the two fed each other. Considered the most famous of Russian photographers of the first half of the twentieth century, Rodchenko, broke the mold of what was thought possible in photography. Already famous as a painter and sculptor, he bid farewell to these mediums in 1924 in order to forge a new visual vocabulary through photography.  

With his motto—“Our Duty is to Experiment!” he pioneered a language of bold and challenging camera angles; he was one of the first to widely use dramatic foreshortening and diagonal composition as well as unusual perspectives from above, beneath and behind the subject. “The most interesting visual angles today are from above down and from below up, and we should work at them,” he wrote, in 1928. “Who invented them—I don’t know. I would like to affirm these vantage points, expand them and get people used to them.”

From provincial Kazan, where he had attended art school from 1910 to 1914, Rodchenko moved to Moscow in 1915. He soon left his mark in the city’s artistic circle by showing his series of compass and ruler drawings at a small exhibition organised by the sculptor Vladimir Tatlin in 1916.

After the revolution, be became a leader of the incipient movement of Constructivism, a theory and practice that was derived largely from a series of debates amongst artists at the newly formed INKhUK (Institute of Artistic Culture) in Moscow, from 1920 to 1922.  A founding member of The First Working Group of Constructivists, Rodchenko would help define Constructivism as the combination of faktura: the particular material properties of an object, and tektonika, its spatial presence. He developed a practice of exploring a single formal artistic premise through a series of permutations—it was a practice that characterised his work throughout his career. For example, as a painter, he would single out separate qualities of painting, such as the texture or density of colour, and analyse them through a successive series of works.

Motivated by the values of the new Communist society, Rodchenko wanted art to be for everyone—the proletariat and the farmer as well as the educated and urbane. A talented designer as well as photographer, he dedicated himself to the creation of propaganda posters, book design and advertisements that supported state-owned enterprises.  Good art and design should be everywhere, not just in galleries and museums.

His design was simple, modern, streamlined. He wrote, “Through design one needs to unveil not the decorative and situational aspect of the thing, but its practical use, its utilitarian value, its unexpected clarity, the beauty of construction, its simplified (rational) production and practicality.” Ironically, the strong designs of his Communist advertisement—geometrical and typified by his bold blockish font—were soon emulated in capitalist advertising elsewhere. Communist propaganda inspired capitalist advertisements abroad.

As Stalin tightened his fist around Communist Russia, most of the truly innovative artists lost their freedom to create. In 1932, the communist party banned all artistic groups and created a single artists union under Party control. Two years later, the Party established Socialist Realism as the only officially sanctioned art style. Rodchenko lost his job at one of the disbanded art institutes and later was disallowed from photographing without a permit. He was only allowed to take documentary propaganda photos and a few personal ones of his wife, Varvara Stepanova and their daughter, Varvara Rodchenko.

As Rodchenko wrote in 1935, “My creative path has not been easy, but it is clear to me who I was and what I want. I am certain that in the future I will make genuine Soviet works.” The revolution that inspired Rodchenko to pioneer a limitless new world for photography in the twentieth century would eventually become the controlling machine that would take away his freedom.

But, all was not lost. Like the leading characters in Tolstoy’s War and Peace, in the end, when the politics proved disillusioning, he delved deeper into his happy domestic life. As Olga Sviblova, the director of the Moscow House of Photography Museum writes, “Alexander Rodchenko was nevertheless a very fortunate man. He had a family: his friend and comrade-in-arms Varvara Stepanova, his daughter Varvara Rodchenko, her husband Nikolay Lavrentiev, his grandson Alexander Lavrentiev and his family, a small, but very close-knit clan charged with creative energy. If it had not been for this family, Russia’s first photographic museum, the Moscow House of Photography, might never have appeared. In Rodchenko’s house, together with the Rodchenko family, we have discovered and studied the history of Russian photography, which would be unthinkable without Alexander Mikhailovich Rodchenko.”

TEXT BY CLAYTON MAXWELL

© picture: Alexander Rodchenko’s Archive
Caricature Showing Osip Brik, variant of a cover for LEF Magazine, 1924, Gelatin-silver print, 24,2 x 17,9 cm
Private collection © Rodchenko’s Archive / 2011, ProLitteris, Zurich

Courtesy:
Moscow House of Photography
Multimedia Art Museum, Moscow
Government of Moscow
Fotomuseum Winterthur

 

The Cold War in a Trash Bag

March 31, 2017 EYEMAZING

Ukraine’s geographical immensity – over 603,600 square metres – makes it the largest contiguous country on the European continent. While neighbouring Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia to the west, Belarus to the northwest, and Romania and Moldova to the southwest, its eastern and northeastern plains meet the borderlands of Russia. But even today certain periods of the country’s early history cast shadows over its impressive geography.

After undergoing numerous changes of leadership since the 14th century, Ukraine suffered divisions of its territories under the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires. For years this instigated warlike scrimmages, likewise failed attempts at attaining independence, en route to Ukraine becoming one of the founding republics of the Soviet Union in 1922. Less than 20 years later, however, as the stage for a Nazi campaign against the Soviet Union, the capital city Kiev became the site for a massacre of Jews, whose bodies were dumped by the hundreds of thousands into the Babi Yar ravine. More years of warfare followed. In 1945 the Ukrainian SSR became a founding member of the United Nations, and 46 years later, after the Soviet Union’s dissolution, the country gained its independence in 1991. But during the years preceding independence Ukraine was the main arena in which Moscow and Washington fought their Cold War – a state of political-military unrest and overt economic competitiveness between the Communist and Western worlds, spanning from 1946 to 1991.

If one were to condense and indeed estrange the aforementioned data by putting it inside a trash bag – in the form of 10,000 black-and-white negatives found in a former newspaper building and later developed to images of people and events during Ukraine’s Cold War period – this would give a rough idea of the multifaceted allure of The Cold War in a Trash Bag, Burkhard von Harder’s photo-project initiated in Ukraine and completed in Germany.

For this project the German photographer, also a filmmaker, functions as a visual worker on two counts: a photo-researcher armed with digital technologies and a photo-artist likewise an objet trouvé (“found object”) collector. Fundamentally, Von Harder points out to viewers that the Ukrainian “intel” culminates in reflections on memory’s role in the perception of history, and that it subscribes to the notion of a great archive, which gathers together many different types of documentation and knowledge. In the photographer’s exciting book presentation of the Ukrainian images – namely a POD (Print on Demand) book, a popular self-publishing format – the sense of an archive initiates a series of philosophical and non-political debates. Von Harder’s photo-project gives rise to the kind of 20th century vanguard thinking that elevates such endeavours to what Foucault deemed a “repository of memory and the fundamental building-block of the present”. Currently, projects of this kind qualify as advancements in the field of artistic research. And Von Harder’s artistic research transpires on three levels at the same time: privately, publicly, and by chance.  

In 2010, in Vinnytsia, Ukraine, when Von Harder entered the attic of a large, deserted building – that is, deserted save the studio spaces of a young fashion photographer and two rappers on one of the floors below – he discovered an abandoned “archive”. Riddled with cracks yet structurally sound, the building begged to be explored. And the photographers did so. While rummaging through the attic, they found several negatives scattered over the floor. This was only the beginning of their find. As they continued exploring the premises, they found more negatives strewn about the space, and their number rose to the thousands – all of them unprotected, left to waste, and in poor condition. Bagging the celluloid scraps and bringing them to Germany posed no problem. Thanks to forthcoming representatives from Ukrainian cultural agencies and museums, Von Harder could cross border after border with the deteriorating material and finally subject it to post-production and image-making processes in his own country.  

The found images of Von Harder’s Cold War photo-project build an archive at once nostalgic, anonymous, and hard to explain. While appearing to capture local Ukrainian citizens from every walk of life, they make unexpected departures into what seem like rigid political situations and equally rigid cultural ones. Intended or not, an offbeat humour wafts from the men’s East bloc attire and (Western) “Monkees” hairstyles, and the specific charm of the made-up, young women was probably never catalogued in any Western manual of style from that period. But private and public auras aside, what reigns is the overall visual quality and suggested cinematic patina. Moreover, apart from being pieces of photojournalism shot by unknown photographers, the images seem twice removed from the reality of most viewers: once for documenting an unknown culture, and again for documenting that culture under the influence of a unique time period. This is where Harder’s project shines brightest: when it welcomes the gaze of viewers unfamiliar with Ukrainian history and Cold War details. With digitalised inventions of his own design, he captures what he calls the “zero hour” between Communism and independence in Ukraine – and goes on to take full advantage of this archive: by evoking an entirely new archive from an old.  

Von Harder’s love of image-making salvages found material as well as encourages viewers to construct mental archives of their own. To work with such humane if inconsistent images would be thoroughly enjoyable, were it not for the disturbing ebb and flow underneath: the sometimes tranquil, sometimes exploding picture surfaces. In unpredictable waves, many of these remarkably sober portraits and documented events become electrified by photo-corruption that bedazzles the picture frame like crude Christmas decorations. These visual intrusions leave the simplest of social situations over-dramatized by the likes of superimposed star constellations and gelatinous forms fringed with roughness, or by amoebic shapes almost close-ups of bacteria and surface abrasions resembling knife wounds when developed. Where corruption overpowers the image the implied documenting of a Communist society dissolves to the hazy psychodrama of a de-politicized European anywhere.   
         
In Von Harder’s own words, his weeks spent visiting Vinnytsia reminded him of life in a small town in Southern Germany, a remark which significantly links with many of his previous projects, especially those he describes as “family research with artistic inclinations.” Such projects focus on researching and discovering private histories, and, in relation to World War II, flushing out human and political sympathies as well. In general, they chart the movements of family members in given time periods and locations. In his Cold War project, however, Von Harder’s interests feel more historical than familial (more European than German), and appear directed at a series of Ukrainian impressions in the name of archive production. What comes to mind is the inventiveness of Von Harder’s 2009 multimedia project Resurrection of Memory.

While keeping a chilly distance from human forms, the cinematography of Von Harder’s film The Scar anticipates the archival state of mind of his Cold War project. If nothing else, its scenes reflect and reflect upon a presence beyond memory as well, while appealing to photography’s convincing ability to present a possible truth or memory. And, via quotes and descriptions, Von Harder also reminds viewers of the new concept of memory at large today – as posted in the 2011 call for submissions to a video project sponsored by the Studio Marangoni and the Celeste Network: “[…] memory as a repository of a single, absolute truth, has been replaced in our information age by the notion of many memories: micro-truths without universal authenticity […]” Concepts of this calibre influence so-called history production and trigger an engaging, cultural phenomenon in the here and now. They serve to remind us that popular philosophy – with theories by the likes of Derrida, Foucault, and Wittgenstein – is bejewelled with notions focused on what the archive is capable of.         
       
But when considering Von Harder’s intuitive, less analytical side – the part of his thinking receptive to the idea of technical errors aiding the creative process – an entirely different visual theatre materialises. (Was it not Derrida who implied that well-executed failures have more value than successes?) As narratives, the pockmarked photographic images suggest the choppy, psychological playfulness of Hans Richter’s experimental film Dreams That Money Can Buy (1947), the crowning difference being that they never lose track of real social criticism. Furthermore, the Cold War images surpass the initial fascination with the objet trouvé, point to a sense of private theatre, and welcome discussions on art movements like Art Brut, Art Informel, and other strains of Raw Art. Along these lines it fascinates how Von Harder’s digital processing transforms photo-corruption imported from Ukraine into photographic “abstract painting”. In certain exposures the accumulations of shapes and distortions ravage the images like a photographic leprosy, leaving viewers little to grasp in the way of “classic” black-and-white prints. Instead, the photograph is reduced to an artwork shaped by deleted references to time and place: a pseudo-social vision trapped in strange nets made of blurs and scratches. Ultimately, if the intention is to research the face of Ukraine’s Cold War period via a single location, the alter ego of the undertaking is surely this painterly implosion of content and imagery. In addition, its jarring appearance corresponds with Harder’s ongoing interest in expressing the hidden layers and concealed aspects of his subject matter.      

In the image-making process it hardly surprises that these pictures recall Germany’s history, along with the massive German word Vergangenheitsbewältigung, meaning “the activity of coming to terms with the past”. In this case, however, what applies most is coming to terms with national unity, invisible divisions, and European integration. With these issues in mind, the depictions of what might be party members posing for ID shots or simply relaxing, scenes boasting Communist artefacts in the background, and images of nervous schoolchildren beside heavily-decorated officials do, in fact, recall some of the political fanfare and social peculiarities of the former GDR. In this context, many “classic” East bloc likewise Cold War details seem challenged by a kind of political Down’s Syndrome, which produces a recurring “look” based on specific types of clothing, objects, and architecture – on characteristics that could only come about under such “Eastern” conditions.

Just the same, the project’s artistic accent is much stronger than its political one. For that reason too, the Cold War images frequently submit to the photographer’s artistic, slight of hand. Von Harder thoughtfully couples or separates his subjects and found models. He juxtaposes the negative and positive images of the same exposure within a single “book spread”. He structures the composition using the fierce-looking scars in the film material, and gives as much weight to a private or official gathering as he does to a playfully solarized shot of proud bodybuilders sitting, squatting, and standing in rows before the camera.

Most significantly, perhaps, Von Harder presents the found Ukrainian material in photographic duets. This clearly adds to the prevalence of research, as if he were telling viewers that the photographic moment is being “studied” from two vantage points at once. (Even photographs Von Harder couples with empty spaces somehow fall into this research-friendly category.) This contrived, doubled oneness presents simple portraits and images taxed with photo-corruption side-by-side, but also offers viewers a potential “before and after” situation – or better still, an archival “then and now”. The latter situation surpasses the former if only because Von Harder’s projects are always so exquisitely constructed in the here and now.  

TEXT BY KARL E. JOHNSON

 

District II

March 7, 2017 EYEMAZING
Joe.jpg
Chris.jpg

Streets of downtown D.C. through the lenses of ,
Chris Earnshaw: Billy Luck’s Downtown
Joseph Mills: Inner City

The Historical Society of Washington, D.C.
Carnegie Library, 801 K St NW, Washington, DC 20001


When I encounter decay, I have tried extremely hard, to bring out the underlying beauty, however faint, in the wreck at hand. It was quite amazing that I could 'lose myself' that way and still return to a qualified version of reality. Chris Earnshaw

This is "the edge of horror and beauty." Earnshaw's world was outside of himself, where mine was internal. One could just as well have read the book title as possessive, Joseph Mills' Inner City, for that was the world I was lost in, locked in, unable to exit, attempting then, only to find the company of like lost souls. All this having very little to do with the city itself.
Not until decades past, and one witnessed the moulting of the DC's scared facade, and the healing of those scares internal, that the images became "important" as documents of that which is external.
Someone said, "the eye sees better then the mind." For both Chris and I, it has taken a very long time to recognize that which our eyes had already known many years ago, having to mature deeply, in order to see the marvels our eyes had already captured when we were so young.

I shun the limelight rather than seek it...getting recognition is not really something that matters much anymore. C.E.

Anonimity, the artist's best friend. Think of Kafka, Van Gogh, and Earnshaw's mentor Atget, and Earnshaw himself. It is certainly no coincedence that their purity of heart and soul, that will eternally emanate from their work, walked hand-in-hand with that closest of companions.

TEXT BY JOSEPH MILLS

Dilip Vishwamitra Bhatia

February 22, 2017 EYEMAZING

Happy Home and School For The Blind

Dilip Bhatia series depicts young boys in the midst of their daily activities at a large boarding school in the photographer’s native India. The photographs are moving and life affirming, with children smiling in almost every picture and bursting with a genuine, happy energy that seems to spill out of each frame. Bhatia’s use of a selective depth of field creates an intimacy that emphasizes the spirit of these boys as individuals. Though this school is undoubtedly a strong and nurturing community, as seen so clearly in the photographs, it is the personal experience of each boy that comes through to touch the heart. Bhatia’s ability to capture this essence is what makes his photographs exceptional.

Dilip Bhatia currently lives in Mumbai, India, where he works on both commercial and fine art photography. An alumnus of the Brooks Institute of Photography, Bhatia established the D Studio N Gallery in South Mumbai and has worked as a photographer in the advertising, fashion, and film industries in India for fifteen years. EYEMAZING spoke with the photographer.

Heather Snider: Can you tell us about how you became involved in this project?

Dilip Bhatia: My brother Kumar was making a commercial film involving seven visually impaired children and these kids were from The Happy Home and School for the Blind. I was to do his movie’s publicity pictures, so I was able to interact with the kids and that’s when the birth of the series happened. When I expressed my desire to do the pictures to the Dean of the school, Ms Banaji, she was kind enough to let me do it.

HS: How would you describe the program or the kind of instruction they receive at The Happy Home?
 
DB: They are treated and taught like all other normal kids; only certain techniques are used so as to make the learning convenient for them. Special importance is given to learning different crafts such as pottery, mosaic, hand weaving, and music so they can be taken as career options later. Most of the children come from not very affluent backgrounds, or situations where the parents cannot give them the time and attention required. The majority of them live at The Happy Home from Monday to Friday and then go to their homes for the weekends.

HS: Would you say that the series is about The Happy Home and School for the Blind in particular, or is it a general statement about blind children, their schooling, or their community?

DP: This was a specific series for The Happy Home, not a statement for visually impaired children in general.

HS: It appears that the school is only for boys; is there a separate girls’ school? Is it common practice in India to separate boys from girls at school? And if so, did you ever visit a girls’ school?

DP: That’s a good question. Subconsciously this question has popped into my mind so many times and I’ve meant to address it, but I never did ask the authorities. Yes, it’s an all boys’ school but that is not really the norm, we do have co-education schools. I do not know about a girls’ school, but will surely find out now…and if there is one I would love to do something new with them.

HS: For how long did you work on the series? And how did you know when you were done or the series was complete?

DP: I worked about twelve days or so, and trust me you can never be done with such a series. I hope to eventually make a book. For the time being, I stopped after I could give the school enough pictures for their brochure and have a few for me to cherish forever.

HS: How many photographs did you take and what was the editing process like? Was it different in any significant way from editing other work?

DP: I shot hundreds of images because, besides my series, I was also doing pictures that the school could use for their brochure. My editing process is very simple… it’s a yes or no… either a picture works or it does not. The pictures in this case had to have that little “it” factor.

HS: Were there differences you felt in photographing people who can’t see in comparison to photographing sighted people? Do you think that you looked at them differently, or that they see themselves and their environment differently than sighted people do?

DB: This is a wonderful question. Well, to start off, I felt heavy and sympathetic within…towards these kids... to be born as humans and then to be deprived of the right to see the world in its entirety. What we just take for granted—vision and all around us in its proper form—is a mystery to them. So naturally, I felt more caring and loving towards them than I would be in other circumstances. But as I started shooting these kids and got to know them more they put me at ease with their self-assured, normal and, most importantly, happy behaviour. They were so eager and enthusiastic to be photographed that it became a pleasure to shoot them.
I have to narrate one of the first incidents. After taking my first few shots, I excused myself and went to the computer to see the images and make sure everything was OK. When they found out what I was doing, they all rushed to the monitor and gathered around it. Each of them would then ask me where they were and how they were looking! They had me in tears with their enthusiasm. The beauty was that they were oblivious to the camera hence every image looks candid.

HS: Did you think about or look at other well-known photographs of blind subjects? Some that come to mind are photographs by Paul Strand, August Sander, Jed Fielding, Mary Ellen Mark, and several Life magazine features.

DB: To be very honest I did not look at any other work of a similar subject… I would definitely look these works up now. In a way it’s good because great work always stays in the subconscious and comes out somewhere! Mine was a reaction to what I saw. I did not go with set pictures in my mind.

HS: Your use of black-and-white for this series suggests a timeless element and a connection to historical photography, was this intentional?

DB: Very, very intentional. Black-and-white is my weakness. Most of my other series and landscapes are in black-and-white. In this case, it helps the emotional quality to come out better, it gives the pictures more depth. Colour would have been a distraction from what I was trying to say.  

HS: Most of the images appear to be spontaneous, taken in the midst of daily activity, while others were obviously constructed in cooperation with the boys. Can you describe working in these two different modes?

DP: The only difference in creating the constructed ones was that I was looking at a concept or a result, so my approach was different. I was getting what I had in mind as opposed to seeing something good and clicking it. As far as the kids were concerned there was no difference; either way they were not aware of my being there. And when they were aware, they did not know when I was going to click, hence the result is still candid.

HS: The most obvious example of a constructed photograph is one titled E which shows three boys enacting the proverb of: “See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.” What is the story behind this one? What did you want to communicate with this photograph?

DP: This is a lovely one. All through my growing years somewhere or other we would see the three monkeys enacting the proverb…See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil…in various forms such as artefacts, wooden statues, etc. So somewhere along the way it was engraved in the mind. That particular day, while photographing the kids, I was just pondering about what could be good or an advantage of being visually impaired. It struck me then that these kids are spared from seeing all the wrong, scary things happening around us in the world and that they do not get to see any evil. So the three monkeys came into action. In this case, I staged the shot with three kids and of course the blind one did not have to block his eyes. While doing so I asked him to sing a song for me and enjoy it, so he almost was clapping “I see no evil”...ha, ha, ha.

HS: One of the most striking aspects of the series as a whole is the feeling of happiness that comes through, the sense of a healthy and vibrant community at the school. Did you sense this from the beginning? Was it something you discovered along the way?

DP: The name of the school is The Happy Home so at the back of my mind I wanted to keep the pictures “happy.” When I started clicking it became even happier as the kids were so positive, not for a moment did they ask for sympathy or help. They were very cordial and jovial and respectful. This resulted in most of the pictures giving a feeling of happiness and positivity.

HS: Was this happiness the overall feeling you were left with after doing the series?

DP: The one main thing that I learnt from these kids in the time I spent with them was that not once did they complain or ask for sympathy. The next time I meet someone less fortunate, I’ll know not to automatically treat them as such, because these kids, no matter the graveness of their problems, held their head high and kept their spirits up. One should support that and not be preoccupied by what they don’t have. I also learnt that most of the rest of us need to stop complaining because not once did I see any of these kids complain about what they did not possess: vision.

TEXT BY HEATHER SNIDER

© Picture by DilipVishwamitra Bhatia

 

Ed van der Elsken at the Stedelijk Museum

February 10, 2017 EYEMAZING

Camera in Love

Ed van der Elsken
Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam
4 February – 21 May 2017

During his lifetime, Ed van der Elsken (1925-1990) produced over twenty photographic books and dozens of films, in addition to a vast body of photography. In this survey, the largest to be staged in a quarter of a century, his oeuvre is revealed through his books and films, paired with dummies and notes that share his process.  Also featured are prints produced by van der Elsken himself, some with the aura he often created around the heads of his subjects.

Ed van der Elsken was a world traveller, a stalker of subjects and stories who favoured a cinematic approach to image-making. He captured scenes and people with an improvisational verve, often inserting himself into the narrative. Van der Elsken came to prominence with his series of images published as Love on the Left Bank, ‘a story in photographs about Paris’. In what was a new genre of photo book, Ed van der Elsken told the semi-fictional tale of Anne (played by dancer, muse and artist Vali Myers) and her Mexican lover. Myers, referred to by Patti Smith as the ultimate beatnik, was perhaps in some ways a feminine expression of van der Elsken’s raw, earthy nature. Myers eventually leaves Paris for the serenity or rural Italy where she paints and draws, surrounded by friends and a colony of animals. Years later, van der Elsken reconnects with Vali in the film Death in the Port Jackson Hotel where she talks of the Paris years – former friends who committed suicide, overdosed, or were committed to a mental institution, and her addiction to opium. Vali’s intensity, a hedonism edged with tragedy, is evident also in van der Elsken’s filmic and photographic work – in his ceaseless urge to embrace the world, in his restless uncontained energy and appetite to feel, see and experience.

The stories that he told were multi-layered – exuberance, passion, languor are embedded there, but death and suffering are never far away. In the early ‘60s, when he fails to find a publisher for his book Sweet Life (the chronicle of his 14-month journey around the world, together with his wife, Gerda van der Veen) a disillusioned van der Elsken resolves to devote himself to film. And begins to tweak his film camera, attaching microphones and batteries with tape and lengths of stick so he can film alone, and for longer, and record sound in sync with image. In My Amsterdam, armed with one of his home-made go pro camera forbears, the filmmaker takes to the streets, driving crazily through run down parts of Amsterdam – former Jewish neighbourhoods that fell into decay during the war years, when inhabitants were rounded up en masse and transported to concentration camps. My Amsterdam reveals van der Elsken’s unconventional, highly personal style – his seemingly unscripted commentary as he hurtles through empty half-demolished streets: streets he loves, streets that he calls home.

This extensive exhibition is a treat for lovers of van der Elsken, and of street photography in general. Aside from the display of vintage prints, dummies, the immersive presentation of his films, and slide and sound installations, this presentation shares something of van der Elsken’s essence. Vali may have been addicted once to opiates, but van der Elsken’s addiction was the camera. He chronicled his world, his city, his family and his final months. He wanted to see beyond the surface of the everyday and the camera allowed him to do that – he wanted to show the world to us, to show himself to the world. His final words on camera were: “Show the world who you are.”

TEXT BY: Lisa Holden

picture: Ed van der Elsken, Vali Myers with cigarette, Paris (1953) Nederlands Fotomuseum / © Ed van der Elsken / Collection Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam

Courtesy Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam
www.stedelijk.nl

 

Evgeny Mokhorev

February 6, 2017 EYEMAZING

Games Children Play

The St. Petersburg photographer Evgeny Mokhorev, photographs the disturbing world of homeless youth. He presents an intense account of troubled childhood, as it is lived in the shelters, orphanages and squats that mushroomed as a consequence of the political turmoil of the 1990s. His black and white images impel by the anxious eyes and fragile bodies of children that are etched in the memory for a long time. Eyemazing gets the inside story of Mokhorev's approach to his medium, his influences and the motivation behind the body of photographs Games Children Play that were originally exhibited at the Changing Reality: Recent Soviet Photography exhibition at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, DC in 1991.

Now in his 40s, Mokhorev was not alone among the Russian photographers who addressed the despair of people situated on the societal fringes during the waning days of the Soviet regime. Sergey Bratkov, Yuri Mukhin and Nikolay Bakharev documented the ironic and poignant scraps of life that were hidden or banned from official culture.
All of them derived from the boom of amateur photography in the post-war communist Soviet Union, and counted Boris Mikhailov’s now-classic images as prototypes.

In 1988 Mokhorev’s milieu in St. Petersburg evolved out of contact with the photo club Zerkalo (Mirror), which was frequented by a group of photographers, but also jazz musicians, poets and intellectuals. It was a tight knit circle of artists who, although amateurs, scrambled to learn from each other during the discussions, exhibitions, concerts and readings that they held. This atmosphere of camaraderie was very productive for people searching for self-expression in a time when an ideology of the collective subsumed the individual. Photography was only one medium that assured documentation of real life from an individual perspective, bearing simultaneously an objective and subjective approach, as well as an official and non-official slant. The stimulating environment of Zerkalo was instrumental in the first steps of Mokhorev’s photographic journey, at a time when resources for education such as books or magazines were not getting through the Iron Curtain. The artists then relied on a peer-review type of critique or group brainstorming when commencing on a new direction or theme.

Overall photography in Russia went through a process of transformation after the end of Socialism in the 1990s. It was able to find its place in the field of art following on the example of Western standards, but with new tendencies regarding form and content which quickly surpassed painting in terms of modernity. The 90s were marked by this seemingly radical change. On one hand, many photographers looked back to the language of the avant-garde, including reportage or even the Constructivism of Rodchenko’s photography. On the other hand, they were fascinated by the possibilities of staged photography that emerged once the photo magazines started to arrive from the West. The artists also embarked on staged landscape photography, tableaux vivant, and documentary and action photography.

A particular genre, that was a fusion of a documentary, staged photography and social critique emerged along with themes that had previously been restricted. Ironically, homeless children, vagrants, prostitutes, frozen corpses, drunkards, right wing radical hooligans, as well as wretched old women became photogenic. They were ready for the immediate use of photographers. Mokhorev, a soft-spoken, tall man with the haunting looks of the Russian Silver Age elite, does not exploit his subject’s depravity but implies a humanistic approach speaking about their needs.

Yulia Tikhonova: Childhood and adolescence are the focus of your photo practice: forlorn bodies, thin, and tattooed but mostly children’s eyes, probing and questioning about the outside world. What was the starting point for the Games Children Play?

Evgeni Mokhorev: My first encounter with children took place in 1990 to1991 when a group of musicians and my friends invited me to a shelter for homeless kids. I was hit by the brutality of the environment that they lived in after being fetched from abuse, sickness and hunger. Their faces however retained a curiosity for life, revealing the fragility and naivety of their personas.

It was in the beginning of the 1990s when the squats started to be filled with the children. Once the Socialist system crashed in 1992 and the brutal market economy was introduced, many children became homeless, after their parents sold a family apartment for the cash needed to feed their drinking addiction or simply to survive in difficult economic circumstances. Many kids ran away from their drunken parents. At that time a myriad of stray dogs also flooded the streets of the city. Ruthless capitalism kicked out the weakest first; that were unable to be fed and children became homeless too.

YT: Do you remember some of the individual stories?

EM: Yes, I met 15-year old Sergey who lived in a basement with his four-year-old sister for three years because his mother had sold their apartment to buy alcohol. He eventually went to the police and asked for shelter. The police also brought two 12-year-old sisters who were arrested for stealing. They had lived on the streets playing musical instruments for money since they were six. Neither was able to read or write. Many conversations were devastating to hear and went something like this:
Does you mom drink? … Yes, and so what? ... Some times she gives me a try…. No, I don’t like it... But to ‘sniff’ the glue–this is cool…when I sniff the funny visions in my head come alive, something like animations…you know. It’s ‘ok’ to live in basements, and even more fun when the central heating pipes are hot…. Yesterday, one dick jugged Sashka, he is in a hospital now…Bath? No I did not have one…why bother?

YT: In St. Petersburg I was shocked to see how the wealth contrasts with the dire situation of many young homeless. The stereotype of a homeless child sniffing glue is very common there, especially in the winter, when glue sniffing is more prevalent. It gives street kids a sense of warmth and banishes their hunger. The facts of cold statistics report that recent poverty and social crises have orphaned more than 700,000 kids, as their parents went either to prison, succumbed to abuse, or otherwise became incapable of providing a home.

EM: Although I was interested in each inhabitant of the shelter, I understood that I would not be able to photograph everyone. And this was not my agenda. I wanted to tell about the extremity of the kids’ situation, their life conflict that is very tangible. Their trauma is also photogenic (in a humane sense of this word of course). An image of a skinny child pressed against the metal headboard of a bed, communicates a tragic message: this child is in danger. The image is haunting and may be even seen as erotic.

YT: Do you think that your images imply erotic references?

EM: Well… This question should be asked of a psychologist or sexologist, upon seeing my pictures. I am only a photographer. When I shoot the images I do not aim to present the kids in any sexual way. Yes, I depict their naked bodies but I try to avoid overt sensual suggestions, and I am not concerned with their sexuality. Let me tell you that the image Maxim with the Doll (2002) was shot with the permission of a correction police officer in one of the shelters. When the boy was showing his photo around I asked him, “Don’t you feel shy to see yourself tattooed here?” He replied, “Tattooed and naked is not me, but the person who shot the photo.”

YT: This is a very interesting observation…it seems that kids do not see themselves as they are in reality: vulnerable, deprived and wretched.

EM: Exactly, I was deeply shaken to learn how fast kids assimilate into the environment of a squat and that it almost became a second home and a convenient form of existence. Perhaps they consider a shelter as a sort of play or violent spectacle where they can re-enact the roles, which they observed in real life. Even their games are violent: they fight with guns, pretending to shoot one another, they slap, kick or impose other forms of violence. This is what they have learned–the power governs everything. An image of Anton with a gun from 1992 became iconic; it was used for the cover of Victor Pelevin’s book Werewolf Problem in Central Russia, which presented a satirical and erotic allegory of the post-Soviet and post-9/11 world.

YT: Can you tell me about the methods of working with children in front of the camera which you use?

EM : This is not easy work for two reasons. Kids often don’t have any taboos and ingrained skepticism yet. They want to try everything that’s new and are keen to participate in the game of photographing which I suggest. But kids also don’t have any boundaries and limitations—they can easily freak out and refuse to shoot for good. I have to deal with both maneuvering between their personalities and my concept. It’s very important for me to involve my protagonists in the creative process and prove to them that the end result, the photograph, is dependent on them as much as it relies on my skills as a photographer. The way they look, the gestures and movement of the body, determines the expressive qualities of the photographs. I am here merely to document their momentary expression of personality. And once my model takes on the role of co-author of the piece, then things start happening in the picture.

YT: But what is really happening…could you elaborate?

EM: I am very interested in the pictorial qualities of photography, and uses of light, metaphorically as well as literally. And if the photograph is “a painting by shadows” then I choose to paint or sculpt my objects with shadows. For instance, by sharpening the contrast between the figures and background, I stress the disconnection of kids from their environment, thus generating a viewer’s empathy with the subject’s. On several images, I blur the borders of the image rendering an effect of an aged image to communicate the psychological relationships with society and their peer's experience of growing up.

YT: Do you see yourself when you photograph these kids, or in other words are these images reflective of your childhood?

EM: My childhood was different. The two decades that separate me from my protagonists were pivotal in Russian history. I was brought up in the relatively safe environment of the final years of Socialism. Our life standards were very modest but we still had a roof over our heads and had no doubts that this life would be forever. These kids are different as they came out of the historical turmoil, which swept the country in the 1990s. Victims of the severe economic crash and moral decline, these children have seen nothing better than lawless resolutions and the power of abuse. What they lived through, no adult would wish to experience. It's not surprising that they assume the current environment as the right model to follow. Many of them got involved in crime, prostitution and drugs. All this said, both generations have a lot in common—we played the same games with pistols and wars, we developed in a similar way as shy, lean and fragile kids–victims of adult cruelty.

YT: Was it a form of play when you started shooting pictures at eight years of age?

EM: Well…yes I got my camera and this was the start of everything I do now. I am a full time photographer. Although I came from a working class family who had no interest in art, I was fortunate to meet several peers at the photo-club Zerkalo (Mirror), which existed in St. Petersburg since the mid 70s. The club was a starting point in my exploration of life through the viewfinder, and at that time I knew that I was drawn towards an inner world of children and teenagers portrayed in their social environment. Nailya Alexander, the owner of the Nailya Alexander Gallery in New York, described my trajectory as a conscious progression from the late 1980s photographs of street kids, to recent work that stripped away the social context but focused on deeper cause of reflection.
YT: Alexander also said "Mokhorev is the only artist in Russia who took upon himself to portray the most fragile and vulnerable part of society–children and teenagers. Through his images one can follow the tumultuous painful transition of post Soviet society."
EM: I had two shows in her 57th Street gallery location: The 26th Element in 2007 and Ambiguous Desires in 2008. She commented on the originality of the multi-layered connotations that explore both marginal territories, and map the magical transition of adolescence, that constituted my approach in the recent years.

TEXT BY YULIA TIKHONOVA
©picture Evgeny Mokhorev

 

Stephane Graff

January 27, 2017 EYEMAZING

According to Albert Einstein: “Imagination is greater than knowledge.” This is because the line between imagination and intuitive insight is very fine, or even porous. If a scientific solution can be flowing from one's intuition, then imagination can act as its container or vessel. Just as poets have their muses, the process of scientific discovery is not dissimilar to the practice of contemporary artists.
 In the photograph titled Regarding Picasso a naked female subject appears in Professore’s nineteenth century laboratory. Metaphorically, she can be seen as this vessel entering the artist /scientist’s psyche. Her distorted face is reflected though a glass jar filled with an unknown solution. Einstein also stated: “The most important decision you will ever make is whether the universe is friendly or hostile.” It thus feels very natural for a female subject to be Testing the water in the Professore’s lab, by slowly dipping her foot into the liquid.  

Is Professore really reliable? Can the archetypal mad scientist be trusted?  Stephane Graff has created an alter-ego that oscillates between the extremes of experience and uncertainty, control and failure, or genius and insanity. He treats Professore with a degree of humour, whilst affirming the character’s quest to expand our knowledge and thus make the universe appear friendlier.  
But Professore might not inspire our full confidence when we find him wearing a strange helmet connected to some vintage electronic devices in Unnatural ways to feel good about yourself. We are similarly perplexed witnessing his electrostatic crystal spiked device in Moral animal. Despite our suspicions of this eccentric character, we are still prepared to blindly drink the “scientific solution” as does the woman in Water therapy.  This highlights Graff’s aim in creating Professore. He clearly wants to question society’s innate trust in science and institutions. Our sense of confusion is emphasised by the fact that Graff deliberately blurs the distinction between reality and fiction. His photographs often have a painterly quality to them, incorporating nineteenth century techniques, as is the case in What’s the grey matter? or Untitled (nude with the grid). His ingenious printing skills are frequently achieved with long exposures onto glass plates and by processing chemicals that he prepares to his own recipe. As a result, this helps Professore to project the qualities of a well-respected and highly educated scientist—the authority figure towards which we find ourselves gravitating.  

As a society we have become too obedient towards our physicians and scientific institutions. We have lost our discernment and disconnected ourselves from our self–healing abilities. As a result, this has made us more prone to addictive behaviour, which manifests in society’s increasing dependence in prescription pills and medications. In this regard, Professore’s attempt in Monitoring addicted personalities, in which the female subject is holding a “chain smoking” device, appears as one of his most absurd experiments.  
Superficially, we seem to be encouraged by the seemingly benevolent scientist examining his patients, as in Anatomy study, or Assert your true potential (stress levels). But in truth, we have evidently surrendered our own healing capacities. The doctor within us finds himself caged behind the bars of scientific dogmas, just as the muse appears to be trapped behind a giant numeric grid in Untitled (nude with the grid).  
Behind the mask of this Clouseau of science, Graff addresses Einstein’s question in all seriousness and seems to be suggesting the following answer: When science manifests a deeper respect towards nature (and primarily human nature), and takes into consideration the limitation of resources, the universe will finally become much more friendly.   There was a time in the past when science and reverence for the human soul were interlinked. It took the form of the ancient art of Alchemy. Symbolically, some of the reference materials that Graff incorporates in his Musée Imaginaire are inspired by actual medical and scientific experiments of these earlier eras.  
A parallel can be drawn here with the nineteenth-century author Edgar Allan Poe, who believed that the realm of spirit and the domain of science should be united. Professore could have been a protagonist in some of Poe’s novels, like Conversation with a Mummy or The system of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether. Most likely, just like in Graff’s body of work, Professore would have been instrumental in expressing Poe’s deepest intuitions and metaphysical truths, such as his deep belief in life after death.  

In his earliest experiments, Professore was trying to record and decode the voice of plants, (Advanced techniques in Communication—Tell me if you are thirsty?). He certainly entertained the possibility of consciousness in all living things, as did the ancient alchemists as they were shedding light on the unsolved mysteries of the universe through their Solve and Coagula— the decomposition and re-composition of matter. Poe, the “Eureka” author also yearned for this reunion between hard science and ethereal spirit, and like Graff, recognised the precision of scientific thinking, the need for empirical observation, research and trial and error, but at the same time acknowledged the spirit and the light of consciousness. They both seem nostalgic for a time when the art of Alchemy was not reduced to chemistry and when the establishment did not label visionaries as heretics or decree that mysticism and science should follow separate paths.

Poe, just like Graff, was critical of the scientific dogmas of his time and sceptical of his contemporaries that were blinded by the science of their day and whose credulity now echoes our own. “Hoax is precisely the word suited to Mr Valdermar’s case (…) Some few persons believe it but I do not. The story is a pure fiction from beginning to end,” he said. He also added after having published two of his novels in scientific magazines, “The Swedenborgians inform me that they have discovered all that I said in a magazine article to be absolutely true, although at first they were very strongly inclined to doubt my veracity—a thing which, in that particular instance, I never dreamed of not doubting myself”.

If Graff aims to highlight the similarities between scientists and artists in their working processes it is because he too senses spirit and matter are one and the same. Creating for him consist of transforming one into the other. Incarnating Professore’s spirit into photographic images is an alchemical act of transformation. Graff describes the Bromoil technique that he sometimes employs as where a picture firstly made in silver gelatin undergoes a complete transformation from base metal to pigmented image. His explorative approach in the darkroom has led him to come up with self-invented practices such as the “Graffite” print (patent pending). This invention allows him to further investigate the mind of a scientist but also to imprint onto the viewer, at least on a subconscious level, the notion that Professore himself may actually stumble upon some tremendous new discovery.
 
What is certain is that he seems to have been paving the road for the latest findings of leading edge neuroscience, which is rediscovering the connection that exists between the soul and the brain. In the language of neuroscience the soul is the feminine life force animating our cells. It is the female subject in Professore’s lab, whose face is reflected in the glass jar—neuroscientist call her “Mitochondria”. The mitochondria are the energy factories at work within our cells, impacting our moods, vitality and aging process. They are inherited only from the feminine, our mother’s lineage. These mitochondria seem to be breaking down under the continual barrage of stress coming from our toxic emotions and environment. Just as Professore is looking into the brain of his muse in What’s the grey matter? cutting-edge neuroscience is looking into possibly reversing the damage caused by free radicals in the brain. When the muse, our inspiration, our optimal mitochondria is restored, then our genes will be able to generate cells that promote brain health. Our current brain wiring is as obsolete as Professore’s wiring in Unnatural ways to feel good about yourself. It relies on neural networks created by the prehistoric, survival at all cost, brain regions. Our toxic emotions and environment comes from this “old wiring” and in this regard, Professore seems to encourage us not to be afraid to adopt a new brain “wiring”, like in Moral animal. Neuroscience now affirms that we can grow new brain cells and change the actual networks in the brain. We can engage newer, higher, more evolved brain structures in the neo and prefrontal cortex.

It would be foolish to overlook Professore’s heroic efforts to communicate this precious information to us. Fortunately for him, the relationship of spirit and matter, while subjugated to the background, was never totally erased from human consciousness. Neuroscience now states that enlightenment is the condition of optimal mitochondria and brain functioning and this implies that Professore was indeed onto something!
 If this is the case, it would indeed be very wise for him to stay “under the radar” and carry on hiding behind the self-depreciating mask of an odd and eccentric scientist, since our scientific community, caught up in its technocracy, bureaucracy and interest groups, has sometimes been merciless towards true visionaries and inventors.
Just as Edgar Allan Poe’s writing attempted to demystify death as a mere transformation from caterpillar to butterfly, Graff, through his alter-ego, is directly tapping into the mysteries of the universe that are within the scope of human consciousness to resolve.
 
TEXT BY FLORENCE LOBET  
© picture Stephane Graff, Unnatural Ways to Feel Good About Yourself

Jürgen Klauke

January 21, 2017 EYEMAZING

Darkness in a blue void.
Front centre a large wooden table.
On the table a disconnected bathtub.
Suspended in midair over the bathtub a MAN.
Greying hair. Earring. Black suit. Leather boots.
MAN levitates parallel to bathtub.
He looks down into the bathtub.

What sounds like stage directions by Beckett is the description of a six-by-eight foot photograph by the artist Jürgen Klauke, “Erstarrtes Ich” (Frozen Self). Klauke’s photography immediately attracts associations unrelated to photography. His photographic oeuvre is a kind of composite artwork and it conveys many of his other art practices in a different form. In that sense, it “translates” his three decades of paintings, drawings, performances, happenings, videos, book publications, and “scribbles” into provocative studies of gender, sexuality, eroticism, and the boundaries of the mind. It also translates Klauke’s aversion to middle-class morality. The artist, presently a professor at the School of Media in Cologne, Germany, admits to growing up “in a bigoted Catholic household in Cologne” and realizing early on in his career that a “social middle class sense of morality has no place in the art world.”

       Via Klauke’s command of several media, we enter his photographic works as though entering a theatre of mental images where the plays are rituals with a muted affinity to language, art, philosophy, and underground music. Among the frequently used stage-props we find the table, the chair, the cane, the balloon filled with water, the tower of derbies, and the bucket. The photographed object, the human subject, and the title of the photograph build a unity in these productions. All three serve as indispensable performers.
      
Jürgen Klauke’s photography has already covered a lot of ground: from his black-and-white clown shows of the “Greetings from the Vatican series” – starring the artist as an archbishop wearing a see-through bra and garter belts under his vestments – to his multiple personality self-portraits; from his “self performances” with masks, make-up, the antlers of a stag, transsexual posing, and “red leather” bondage costumes with hints of vintage David Bowie (“Masculin-Feminin” and “Transformer”) to his photographs practically Dogma-like political film sequences; and from his abstract photo-sequences reminiscent of Hans Richter’s surreal film “Dreams Money Can Buy” to his enduring trademark in recent self-portraits – his businessman-magician or man-in-black look.

In these works the presence of the human body (often Klauke’s body) consistently points to ways of conceptualizing the body. Some of the photographs suggest “philosophical” mug shots that document how suspects transform, pause, and contemplate, and not merely how they look after the alleged crime of being; some suggest abstract human remnants in a work of “Concrete” photography, and others a human body charged with the kind of sexual longing and sexual ambivalence siphoned from archetypes of Pop and Rock culture.

In Klauke’s later works, however, like in “Frozen Self” and the other “monumental” blue or red-toned images, the human body is reduced to a naked or clothed piece of inventory and becomes more like an “art object” – or more like a living shrine. Among these photographs we also find images where no human subjects at all appear and the object world dominates, or images where the human subject has sombre or hilarious encounters with shelving units, tables, or chairs. In every case, though, the photograph evokes a wrestling match between the human body and “existence” – or as Klauke says: “The grotesque temporality of existence”. Under closer inspection the photographs reveal states of mind caused by questioning the moral and psychological fibre of Western society, which allows them to function at the same time as reflections and attacks on bourgeois longing, living, and loving. They interrupt the accepted patterns used to convey beauty and take special aim at the viewer’s nervous system. Their aesthetic brilliance is simple: we experience visual and conceptual Spartanism as a form of excess, and while the photographs document embodiments of longing, living, and loving, they distance themselves from any “traditional” photographic documentation of such human capacities.

Klauke’s imagery operates strongest at three crossover points: where description becomes invention, where the masculine becomes the feminine, and where photography struggles to remain photography, since his works advocate a distinction between “photography,” used to document the outside world, and “art photography,” Klauke’s preferred photography, used to document an inner expression of freedom. Behind all this stands the unmistakable humour of a sceptical optimist who produces carefully staged “dark comedies” on the banalities of life. This too, somehow refers to the opening association. In Beckett’s “Endgame”, the old woman who lives in the trashcan tells us: “Nothing is funnier than unhappiness”.
     
In 1994 and 2005, Jürgen Klauke and Cindy Sherman were exhibited together. In 1994, they shared the exhibition spaces of the Goetz Collection in Munich. Apart from being an exciting “two-part” solo, the exhibition was an intriguing comparative study of two photographers with compelling similarities. Both artists are masters of the photographic self-portrait. Both treat life as a theatre, film, or circus; and both investigate the relationship between human beings and photography. But while Sherman ultimately “turns her attention to fashion, food, myths, war, and art history,” Klauke – via “male fantasies” made intoxicatingly narcissistic and voyeuristic in the photo-making process – ultimately concentrates on a mental dialog between the body and the world of objects.

Sherman and Klauke both portray themselves as androgynous creatures in a netherworld between life and art, but one major difference is their unalike inner-calling. As a child of the enlightened 60s, representative of a generation of artists such as Vito Acconci, Duane Micheals, Klaus Rinke, and others who pioneered Body Art, Klauke’s art seems to insist on paying tribute to that other era. Put differently, his art seems more driven than Sherman’s art by the doctrines of an art generation that secured photography’s acceptance as an art form in the first place. Hence the different and not always so different reception of the two artists. A journalist once called Klauke’s art “Un-German” (Sherman’s art is surely “Un-American”), and Meret Oppenheim referred to it as “a little beautiful and a little dirty at the same time”.  

Oppenheim’s reference could probably apply to the photo-sequence “Viva España”. In its individual “stills,” the faces of the two performers (man and woman) remain cloaked by their black garments. HE holds HER elevated in a variety of acrobatic positions, and, while her legs – revealing high-heeled shoes and garter belts – hang over his shoulders or rise up like antennae, project from under his arms or bend in midair at the knees, they perform a “dance” that seems to involve sex in a standing position. In the last still, with the woman upside-down now, they come to rest on a chair, united in a pose resembling the body of an insect. This photographic performance – one of the artist’s earlier demonstrations of how life and art merge – seems dominated by dirty dancing.

But in Klauke’s recent photographs the mental issues dominate. Patient and at peace with themselves, the artist and his human subjects appear in monumental picture frames, and, with their own bodies, they conduct what appear to be studies on loneliness, gravity, death, and run-of-the-mill boredom. The colour, stillness, and symmetry of these images only seem to have a high-profile portraiture quality. In reality, what passes for a visual aesthetic is actually a mental one, and the compositional simplicity nearly blinds us to the reference being made to a “transfigured soul becoming a transformed soul”. The visual or spiritual fixation of these images refers more so to “states of mind” like desire and hope, and to boredom – a state to which Klauke owes a great deal.

In his photo-series “The Formalizing of Boredom” – completed after “suffering an artistic lull and unbearable sense of repetition in life” – he chose to give a form to what was threatening to undo him then. At the core of this body of works on the complexity and lunacy of boredom – featuring Klauke with a plastic bucket covering his face, the bucket signifying the world “kicking the bucket” – is the realization that boredom is a unique mental state “part motionless, part unfilled periods of time,” and part insidious game played with the senses. It arises from an exaggerated moment of inactivity; it transforms its victim when emotional, social, and psychological factors such as love, work, and belief fail to operate properly. But most importantly, boredom not only tells us something is wrong; it tells us something really exists.

The “visualized” state of boredom in Klauke’s works causes a transformation of the identity that recalls Rimbaud’s famous remark: “Je’est un autre” (I is another). At times it also camouflages the identity of the photograph. Like with the huge blue or red images, and the works compiled in 2000 for the artist’s book, “Trost für Arschlöcher oder Desaströses Ich” (Consolation for Assholes or The Disastrous Self ), what appears to be a denouncement of life or happiness is only Klauke’s photography running its usual course and functioning as both an information carrier and information transformer.

From the late 1990s to the present, Klauke’s monumental blue and red-toned photographs express his artistic concerns on a grander and almost classical scale. In spite of their “empty” appearance, none of his artistic trademarks are missing – whether the poetic reference, the meaning-laden choice of title, and (Rock) musicality in the photograph’s blurred sections, or the “Absurd Theatre” gestures of the human subjects and the staged moments of nudity. Viewed individually or in groups, they create a perfectly balanced Theatre of the Self. They refer as much to sculpture and dance as they do to “art photography,” and their use of “photographed” time, space, and signs illuminates the humane-erotic adventure at the root of Klauke’s works: the journeys forged by thought-provoking mind games that revel in the “condition humaine”.  

“Before staging a photograph, a good deal is imagined and figured out in advance,” says Klauke. But this hardly simplifies things. The selection and placement of the used objects are of paramount importance: “The way an object is used decides whether the work speaks of freedom or restraint.” Much of the selection process is handled beforehand in texts and later transposed into images. But, while making the actual photographs, “the objects and the human subjects have to be drastically reduced and yet leave room for sensuality and poetry”. And searching for any supportive visual material along the way only generates the problem with the visible and the invisible: “What I need and prefer are my own images. I need what isn’t there more than I do what is [...] I work my way down through the crust of an idea, bit by bit, mistake by mistake, toward the true sense of an idea.” Which echoes another of Beckett’s ironic sayings: “Try, fail, try again, fail better.”

When an artwork is about life, what could be more difficult than capturing the exact sense? Here Klauke’s philosophical bent comes to his rescue: “I don’t necessarily pursue any greater sense. On the contrary, I formulate the totally senseless, and, in turn, that’s what gives me a sense – for a while”. What helps convey this sense is his carefully contrived system of codes, composed of constellations of objects. For example: Table = World, Bucket = Eliminated World, Table + 3 Hanging Buckets = Stillness, etc…

So it happens that when the curtain rises, that is, when our gaze rises to one of the blue or red-toned photographs, we see what resembles a staged construction on the one hand, and the last traces of a happening or just-documented event on the other. In this setup, the atmospheric density of the blue or red void seems to suggest music. Our eyes can almost “hear” it – a kind of soundtrack in these oddly mythological images intensified by titles like “Annäherungsakrobatik” (The Acrobatics of Coming Closer), “Warteschleife”  (Holding Pattern), “Zweisamkeitsimaginierung” (Illusions of Togetherness), “Dritter Wiener Richtung” (The Third Viennese School), “Entrückungserlebnis” (Feeling Enraptured) and “Phantomempfindung” (A Phantom Sensation). Regarding the titles, what the artist does compares to naming the entirety of one poem with the entirety of another. What astounds us the most is the vastness of the photograph’s used and unused space, and watching a framed two-dimensionality masquerade as a three-dimensional performance.
 
On a visual level, Klauke’s early experiments with X-ray photography also seem present here, at least where “the external appearance of objects and human subjects dissolve, lose a portion of their meaning, become de-individualized, and transform into something else, into something entirely new”. While encountering this “something entirely new” in a piece of straightforward photography like “The Acrobatics of Coming Closer”, we have the impression that we see right through what looks back at us. Yet the surface and content of other images remain as locked away from us as a stranger’s thoughts. And so the MAN who carries out the perplexing experiment with the rectangular shield harpooned with canes wins our attention without us ever learning what it is he discovers right before our eyes. Or we have pictorial variations like the one in “Phantom Sensation”, where sharply focussed or blurred objects – in this case, a stack of derbies – levitate, tumble, and fly out of the frame of their own will.  

What these coded mental-scenarios or fragments of dream-happenings would never have us forget is that the artist is aware of the world’s violence and cynicism, and of the mediocrity of life. They want to tell us that his goal is not to create art for art’s sake, with his back turned to the world’s shortcomings. On the contrary, Klauke’s goal is to look directly at life, at the “grotesque temporality of existence,” and to visualize it as best he can from both sides – from the world’s morbid standpoint and from his own memories, sensations, and experiences.

In March 2005, a selection of Jürgen Klauke’s works made an appearance at the DFOTO International Photography Fair in Sans Sebastian, in Northern Spain. And no other word but “appearance” applies. His blue-toned photographs appeared in the exhibition space in the same manner that spirits, angels or visions might appear. From one moment to the next. Maybe there, maybe not. Represented at DFOTO by the Paris-based Gallery Cent 8, Klauke’s photographic “mind games” not only overpowered the space; they seemed to bring all the movement around them to a standstill. It was as though they were repeating the title of the recent publication on Klauke’s complete photographic works, “Absolute Windstille,” which refers to that moment when the wind comes to a halt and imitates the stillness of an object.

TEXT BY KARL EDWARD JOHNSON 
©picture Jurgen Klauke

Germán Peraire

January 13, 2017 EYEMAZING

Night Diary is the photographic chronicle of the nocturnal wanderings of Spainsh photographer, Germán Peraire. They are impressions captured by a man astray in the night, wandering through nameless bars and town squares surveying an uncertain metropolis as he encounters a cacophony of clatter and hum, echoing from this subterranean urban nightscape. Employing a simple, but raw pallet of high key black and white tones, Germán collects shadows and intimacies punctuated with hints of gender blur and irreverence.

The images in Night Diary unravel as a series of scenarios, like a collection of one act plays, each with its own distinct narrative. The photographs reverberate with pathos and pain, laughter, love, and desolation. Some moments vibrate with the vapours of alcohol, others rattle with a distinct surrealism from an in-between world. A world where conventional boundaries of sexuality and sensuality blur. Madness tumbles forth in ways one can only stumble upon when on walkabout in the early morning hours before night lifts and is replaced by the harshness of dawn. In the blazing morning light, these impressions are obliterated immediately like a vampire burned by the sun, but when encountered in the intensity of night, spotlit under garish streetlights, the shadows that fall become epic and the subjects hold centre stage with bold defiance.

Night Diary also pays homage to what the artist describes as, the Spanish way of encountering the night – “people are drawn together with no determined final destination, but with a desire to be immersed in the energy of the moment present.” Enacted on a stage of narrow streets in the old town of Barcelona, Germán seeks other “night wolves” like himself, who grapple with personal phantoms, and like him, contemplate their existence while wandering aimlessly. He searches within this sea of outsiders for kinship, even if only for a brief few moments. Amid the messy, unkempt implied decadence, Germán seeks to discover and record with his camera a purity, a secret beauty within, lying underneath the crust of this frenetic night force that holds him spellbound.

The streets are a playground for his subjects where they act out expressionistic tales and he watches, as if from the window of a train—distant, an outsider, among outsiders. His resulting impressions reveal a deep loneliness, a fathomless, creatural hunger based on an instinctual need to belong somewhere with someone, even if only a few desperate moments. He intimately records the energy exchanged between himself and his subjects, almost as if he has been able to find a way to crawl under their skins and feel their existence first hand. They stare out from his images with an openness and affinity that leaves the viewer curious as to the relationship between artist and subject.

With the eyes of a street poet, Germán employs chiaroscuro as his spoken vocabulary, to release the sound of the crowd—the resonance of their raw emotion pours forth from their gaze. There is a strong sense of respect for these night wanderers in their quests resonating from each image, whether their journey seems to be but a brief moment of experimentation and philosophical exploration, or if the streets take the form of a prison with no escape—a permanent residence not of choice, but of inevitability. This candid honesty which is ever-present throughout Germán’s images in Night Diary, expresses no sentimentality, only this incredible sense of an implied collaboration between artist and subject, like an ephemeral bridge of understanding, constructed in a fleeting moment.

Germán describes Night Diary as the first major opus in his photographic career. He feels at present it is but a sonata, the tip of an iceberg that he will continue to develop into a full-blown symphony over time. His aim is to portray “a hedonist, marginalised humanity seeking pleasures,” but he also catches in his photographic net the other souls, those who get disoriented and lost in the night and can find no escape. The images are the reflection of his personal universe that he finds scattered around him in these night explorations. Throughout the work is a sense of homesickness, restlessness and homelessness, comprised into an unforgettable cantos, affirming this endless search for essence, identity and belonging by humanity. The visual tune is powerful, pounding with a steady bass rhythm of a perhaps tattered, but indomitable hope.

TEXT BY PEGGY SUE AMISON
©Picture: German Peraire
Represented by Galeria Togomago, Barcelona

 

Robert Mapplethorpe

January 6, 2017 EYEMAZING

An interview with Sofia Coppola

Filmmaker Sofia Coppola has a status as impressive as hard to believe. In the United States she ranks as the first lady of “Best Director” Oscar nominations: the first American woman ever nominated for an Academy Award for directing, an honour received for her 2003 film Lost in Translation, two more feature films, and a Golden Lion honorary award (conferred upon her at the 2010 Venice Film Festival for Somewhere) – Coppola’s talents are surpassing the art of moviemaking. Now she celebrates her skills as a curator as well.

From Mapplethorpe’s visually-exacting sexual explorations to his faultless floral studies (vaguely reminiscent of the Japanese aesthetic which passes through Lost in Translation), Coppola clearly reacts in her own way to selected lesser-known images by the controversial photographer who died of AIDS in 1989. She presents viewers with a body of work that evokes a vision less influenced by the undertow of what Mapplethorpe once labelled “smut raised to art”. In fact, by comparison, Coppola’s personal selection—extracted from around the potentially shocking and frighteningly beautiful photographic offerings (coined by Peter Conrad of The Observer “florid penises and penile flowers”)—presents an entirely different line of thought.

Coppola does not rediscover Robert Mapplethorpe. Instead, as implied by her new profession, she truly “selects” from him. Almost joyously, she rethinks Mapplethorpe, the “stylish Manhattan fetish-hipster”, as the multifaceted phenomenon he really was. Finally, her present-day look at Mapplethorpe is achieved by putting a face of her own design on the master’s images. At times her selection also evinces a group effort made possible with the help of former co-workers and friends of the artist such as Dimitri Levas, a man who began as Mapplethorpe’s image scout and prop supplier. However, one wonders—personal contact being supremely important to Mapplethorpe in his lifetime—had reality, time, and coincidence allowed Sofia Coppola and Robert Mapplethorpe to connect, would it have been possible for curator and photographer to find some artistic niche to creatively bond in? At the same time would it have been possible for Coppola’s winning and socially-astute “cinematic” humour to somehow alter Mapplethorpe’s pretended lack of one: his famously dark and sexually-charged inner grin, a mask of sorts which strangely covers his semi-Warholian aura, and his well-publicised, deathly serious gaze which shines brightest from behind his black-and-white images of nudes and flowers?

In any event, regarding Coppola’s debut, a suitable second title for the show would be The Curator’s Cut. What goes unnoticed at first is the fine line separating direction from selection, the all-uniting choice-making that casts and directs images by making, for example, hypothetical “love scenes” precede or follow hypothetical “fight scenes”. Imaginary or not, no overall visual script for the still images—dictating how photographs lead up to or away from each other—is actually visible here. In its place, viewers receive a gallery-savvy selection more design than cinematic storytelling. Yet the excitement of a film is present in other ways, and we do sense the likes of flat actors on the “screen” of the gallery wall.  

Experienced film-buffs might read into Coppola’s image selection the kind of saccharine acridity that recalls the opening scenes of her film The Virgin Suicides. But the message is not, after all, the medium in this case. Ultimately, what on the surface of the selected photographs appears refined and tranquil—if also slightly scented with a passing knowledge of death and raised to newer levels of visual rapture through undeniably beautiful images of children, animals, and flowers—evidences one of Mapplethorpe’s most developed callings: his ability to infuse any object or person with a sense of classicism—from a shiny dead fish left on a newspaper to remarkably endowed men and women often the consenting victims of bondage spectacles, intermingled with what often appears in Coppola’s French show: the cherub-like child and innocuously “penile” exotic flower.

With an artist of Mapplethorpe’s calibre it seems difficult, if not ludicrous, to say whether his images are properly received or appreciated at this stage of the art-history game. All things considered, ferocious scandals and censorship issues of the type which plagued the travelling show The Perfect Moment have been (largely) relegated to the past. At heart, what Robert Mapplethorpe’s art represents is the love of and fascination with what one sees. His gaze is so real, so close to existence itself, and so much of his viewers’ own flesh and blood that any criticism instantly falls short of its intended purpose. Why should it not? One could just as easily be finding fault with the clouds racing by overhead or, for that matter, with the laws of gravity. On several counts, Mapplethorpe’s imagery is that natural, that essential.

Faced with such simple complexities (or overly-simple realities) it might be best to do what Coppola—the curator—does. She exhibits an unswerving belief in her own visions, feelings, and tastes, and, as if an artistic creature made of living-and-thinking glass, she effortlessly reflects another person’s view of life on the surface of her own. There is as much distance-making as private exploration at work. Also, there is a different and totally legitimate “approach” to art appreciation: enjoyment. If nothing else, Sofia Coppola’s curatorial debut emphasizes a refreshing truth about her subject. For appearing void of humour, Robert Mapplethorpe’s all-seeing and surely all-sensing gaze consistently dares viewers not to be amused.                    

Karl Johnson: Is this the first time you have worked as a curator? What was your initial reaction to the invitation to curate a Robert Mapplethorpe exhibition—or did you choose this particular artist yourself?  

Sofia Coppola: Thaddaeus Ropac asked me if I would curate the show, and I thought it would be interesting to look through Mapplethorpe’s archive. I’ve never done this before. But I knew, of course, that the gallery had different artists curate shows of Mapplethorpe’s work in the past.

KJ: As a filmmaker you most likely have a strong interest in still photography. Do you collect photography and perhaps developed knowledge of Mapplethorpe’s work in that way?

SC: Yes, I do collect. I started collecting photography when I was a teenager. My mom took me to art fairs and she would give me photos for Christmas. I love photography, and it taught me a lot that I used later when making films. For my first film, Virgin Suicides, I looked at Bill Owens and Joseph Zsabo, as well as at 1970s Playboy photography.

KJ: Mapplethorpe photographed many artists and personalities he knew personally. When Cindy Sherman curated the 2003 Eye to Eye show it was one friend reconsidering the work of another. With an artist like Mapplethorpe, the personal side always played a major role. How did you go about getting to know him, so to speak, before you curated the show?

SC: I looked through his photos with Dimitri, who was a friend of Mapplethorpe’s as well as his art director, and it was great to hear all the stories behind the photos. And he pointed out things to me I didn’t know about, like Mapplethorpe’s portraits of children.

KJ: Of course the most important topic of discussion is your selection, the photographs you chose to exhibit and why. Can you describe your concept and selection?

SC: I just chose what appealed to me first. I enjoyed picking the Mapplethorpe images that are less known, the images I didn’t really know about myself until now, like the photographs of children and horses.

KJ: Without calling Mapplethorpe a tragic or socially-remote figure, the final stages of his life somehow imply the deconstruction of a character formerly in the limelight. Do you see it this way, too—and perhaps as a situation reminiscent of Johnny Marco’s in your film Somewhere?
 
SC: No, I don’t think of Mapplethorpe in that way.

KJ: What struck so many people as scandalous about Mapplethorpe’s work in, say, the 1970s to 1990s, hardly disturbs the way that it did before. For one thing, we can discuss sexuality and pornographic intensity with more openness today. How important is the controversial “edge” of Mapplethorpe’s art for you as a curator? Do you think it still shocks?

SC: Yes, there are some images that are really hard to look even now. But I didn’t focus on those in the show. I wanted to look at another side of his work.

KJ: I find the idea of you directing your vision at Mapplethorpe’s work refreshing. Many major photographers have been handled so predictably in the art world, and a totally new outlook like yours can lead to genuine rediscoveries. Do you or your colleagues think that your work with Mapplethorpe’s art presents a new take on his material and meaning?

SC: I hope so. For the show I picked images I connected with. And when I saw books by other people who curated Mapplethorpe shows, it was interesting to see how his work has been handled from so many different angles.

KJ: Mapplethorpe’s art also offers a wide range of exceptional portraits of woman. Experts like Arthur C. Danto have mentioned them in connection with the exciting but unalike portraits of women by Garry Winogrand in Women Are Beautiful, a series that Mapplethorpe commented on. Do you give special attention to Mapplethorpe’s treatment of women in the exhibition?

SC: I didn’t really focus on that at all. But I have, of course, included some women. I really just chose the images that I liked, and that I thought could work together for a show. And, like I said already, I enjoyed most discovering the images that I didn’t know.

KJ: Now that you’ve had, so to speak, the curator’s experience, would you consider such work a special challenge for a film director—or are both activities somehow similar for you? What also comes to mind here is watching, for example, film director William Friedkin work as an opera director nowadays. Do you find it exciting to work outside your usual professional environment?

SC: I find anything you do creatively to be quite similar. For example, while I’m directing, I’m also editing, making decisions based on what I like—or else using my instincts. It was a great deal of fun for me to learn more about Mapplethorpe and, of course, to have access to his archives. And yes, I do enjoy doing things that I’ve never done before. That’s why I’m really looking forward to hanging the show. The truth is, I’ve always wanted to be an art director.

TEXT BY KARL E. JOHNSON
©picture: Robert Mapplethorpe, Katherine Cebrian, 1980
Courtesy, Thaddaeus Ropac

 

Anders Petersen

December 30, 2016 EYEMAZING

Intensive and sensitive

The Swedish photographer Anders Petersen has won many prizes, among them Photographer of the Year at the 2003 Arles Festival. He exhibits internationally, is collected by numerous prestigious institutions and has had over twenty books published, all while working freelance, and not for newspapers or even advertising.

He had made a name for himself by the time Café Lehmitz was published, titled after an ordinary bar in Hamburg’s St. Pauli quarter frequented by drinkers, whores, petty criminals and ordinary people in the 1960s. Back then, as a grammar school dropout, Petersen used to frequent Hamburg, photographing the dark side of the entertainment industry with all its failed lives. And his fascination for this basic subject matter remained. But his attitude has no hint of voyeurism, on the contrary: as the photographer himself puts it, the Hamburg bar was for him a symbol of warmth and human contact where true friendships were made and kept. It is evident from his pictures that he felt himself among kindred spirits and quickly became integrated into this scene.

Café Lehmitz appeared in print ten years later. It was his third book, and one of the first publications with the Munich-based publishing house Schirmer/Mosel, that thereafter made a name for itself in part with author photography. The publication secured Petersen’s reputation abroad as well and has since been reprinted in Germany. Tom Waits used one of the images for the cover of his 1985 “Rain Dogs” album and thus sealed the iconic significance of Petersen’s photography. For some years now, Petersen has been rediscovered outside Sweden too—assisted in this by being awarded the Dr. Erich Salomon Prize by the German Society of Photography (Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Photographie) in 2008. His images have now attained classic status. There are bound to be more prizes and retrospectives to follow.
 
Since his first publication Gröna Lund in 1973, he has produced numerous artist’s books and catalogues, not all for the international book market but usually for the Swedish one. His most recent, three-volume Steidl publication City Diary is about to go to press.  

1995 saw the publication of his book Ingen har sett allt—and thus we come to his first exhibition at the Swedish Photography Gallery in Berlin. Nobody has seen everything, which is the English title, was then the title of his book of 47 black-and-white images that had been created in several psychiatric institutions around Stockholm between 1992 and 1995. The exhibition of some 40 small-format vintage prints, which Swedish Photography is exhibiting for the first time, as a series entitled Mental Hospital, offers an almost complete overview of the sequence and the artistic intention behind it. In the case of the missing images, particularly ones with sexual content, Petersen was not able to secure the consent of the patients’ next-of-kin.

In the 1960s, anyone could visit Café Lehmitz, but it was unlikely that they could take photos freely. The challenge was surely harder still in the psychiatric institutions of the 1990s: a photographer would first have to win the trust of doctors, attendants and, above all, the patients, whose stay might be temporary or compulsory. In this society too, Petersen conducted himself with sensitivity and assurance and his camera seemed to become forgotten by the subjects during the long-term project. The sequence occasionally shows direct eye contact with a patient and thus a connection is established, even if the result is usually a strangely inward gaze. Be that as it may we, too, are drawn as later observers into an unknown world, a closed system. On viewing these intense portraits we can’t resist their pull.

The high-contrast black-and-white quality of the images makes these classic, timeless documents a hallmark of the photographer. His pictures are still taken with an analogue, 35 mm or 6 x 6 format camera, always in black and white, and bear no individual titles, as they are parts of a series. Photo historians like to pigeonhole Petersen as a social documentary photographer. But the term documentary is certainly problematic in this case. We can say that Petersen eschews on principle the manipulation of his images, but they are very subjective which, of course, rules out objectivity. And as objectivity seems to be an important criterion for a documentary eye, we had better be wary of such pigeonholes. Petersen himself once said of his intention that what interesting to him was “…the bare encounter, the naked, powerful confrontation with the other, and hence with ourselves.” Seen in this way, his portraits could be understood as an extended self-portrait.

The photographer has placed most patients at the Swedish clinics in front of a neutral background where hardly anything distracts from the individual. However, in one picture, in contrast, numerous dark marks can be seen on a white table, likely caused by lit cigarettes left on the tabletop. This inattentiveness is reflected in the man’s unselfconscious pose, as he lies fully-dressed on a bed; he seems to have slipped away from normal life. The tabletop is presumably plastic, designed, as the rest of the bare tiled room, for pragmatic, everyday functionality. Here, Petersen has chosen a view from above and shows a claustrophobic, stage-like situation, whereas in other images the view is from below, photographed from the grass roots, as it were. His images are always perfectly composed, often incorporating unusual traces of light; these arise from “a gut feeling”, as the photographer says, a combination of intuition and years of artistic experience.

Petersen combines distance and proximity to the object in an inimitable pictorial language. He always seems to be right in the thick of things, allowing himself to be engrossed by the situation—just like his earlier colleagues Ed van der Elsken or Bruce Davidson, and later Daido Moriyama or Nan Goldin. Yet in spite of the unusual proximity to the subject matter of the images, in this case to people, Petersen manages to preserve a distance, enabling him to produce portraits which are restrained, unadorned, individual and simultaneously typecast, whether in everyday situations or in closed institutions. Beauty and terror are often found side by side.
Petersen feels an emotional connection to his fellow humans: we can sense his empathy. He approaches them with respect, curiosity and an open mind—and creates pictures, which move us without leaving us too shocked. It is almost an affectionate approach: the people in bars, prisons or mental hospitals are by no means compromised. He allows the inmates of the psychiatric clinics sufficient space for themselves, their self-expression and their surroundings, which they have in part chosen. There is hardly anyone who makes a sad or desperate impression; most appear simply absent, self-absorbed. Thus any charge of voyeurism in his photography rebounds. But at the same time, the idea emerges of an intensive, uncompromising investigation into the depths of human existence, which is surely revealed in these places.

Born in 1944 in Stockholm, Petersen now lives there once more. From 1966 to 1968, he studied with Christer Strömholm at the photography college that the latter founded in Stockholm. Petersen has worked since 1970 as a freelance photographer, initially also for Swedish newspapers and magazines. In 1973, he studied for two years at the College of Film and TV. In workshops nowadays, he advises young photography students to try and forget everything they have ever learnt—or simply switch their thoughts off when photographing. This might be a useful key for us also when considering his enigmatic work.

TEXT BY MATTHIAS HARDER
©picture Anders Petersen
Courtesy, Swedish Photography, Berlin

 

← Newer Posts Older Posts →

Powered by Squarespace