|
<<
back to texts A conversation between Ulf Lundin and Niclas Östlind NÖ:
The art of looking has for a long time - perhaps always - interested practioners
in both the visual arts and literature. Within postmodernism this subject
has also to a large degree been theoretically thematised. The gaze - the
Other's, the male, the colonial etcetera - has been problematised and
studied in many ways. The writer Paul Auster's and the photographer Sophie
Calles's work and collaborations are one of the main examples of how the
complex relationships between the observer and the observed are given
form. Voyeurism is a loaded area surrounded by both desire and shame,
perhaps this explains the fascination. Your project "Pictures of
a Family" raises many questions that touch upon the relationship
between the observer and the observed, between reality and fiction. UL: Even
if you looked at all of the thousands of images I've taken of the family
you wouldn't learn so much more about them. Of course, you can find out
some things, but you have to fill in large gaps with your own expectations
and predjudices. Of course, the greatest part of a person's life is something
else than that which can be photographed. In this project it is, of course,
important who he is, that I have a relationship to him, but at the same
time the viewer doesn't know his name or the name of the city where he
lives. I am not trying to tell the true story of this family - even if
that were possible - instead I'm trying to get at something else. NÖ: If one disregards the format and the serial context, the photographs in "Pictures of a Family" have obvious similarities with failed amateur photographs, the ones that are usually disregarded when the film is developed at a one-hour lab. There are also, for obvious reasons, similarities with the images produced by the police, spies or others involved in surveillance operations. Despite the fact that the specific circumstances for the production of these type of images should have greatly influence the way they look one can still talk about a distinctive photo genre with a definite repertoire of characteristics. How do you regard your images' relationship to other genres and how important were the formal aspects in your choice of photographs to be included in the series? UL: Of course the images look the way they do because I have decided that's how they should look. The technical "failings" that exist are meant to be there. For example, I've used high sensitive and coarse-grain film even when it wasn't necessary just to get the result I wanted. And even if the photographs are large their proportions are reminiscient of the images one finds in a family photo-album. They are also displayed in the exhibition almost like "snapshots" - they are unframed and hung a couple of centimetres from the wall. Their size is what one is used to in an art context, which contributes to that, to some extent, the family's everyday life is elevated to art. In almost all of the images there is something between me and the family, a hanging branch, a blurred fence. This depends partly on, as you say, the specific circumstances under which the images were produced, and also positions you and me as viewers standing outside looking in. I think that the viewers generally identify themselves with me as observer rather than with the family. I am not primarily interested in the decorative qualities of the aesthetic although I find the images beautiful. The mistakes and failings that are present in the images are an attempt to get past the surface in the images and instead focus on the story and the concept behind the work. I have even disregarded some of the images that were too aesthetically correct, images that one immediately likes but after a while they are nothing more than a beautiful composition. NÖ: It is interesting that you emphasize the importance of the narrative and it is all too easy to think that the story would be broken if the individual photographs had a strong individual character. Contrary to "Pictures of a Family" your video works rarely have a narrative or any sequences that build up a drama in the traditional sense, instead you use video as a type of still image, which in one sense is to work against the specifity of the medium. So far, you have worked with photography, video and in certain cases, even sound. What are your thoughts on the relationship between the different forms of expression, how important is the medium for your work? UL: Panning or zooming do not feature in any of my videos. There is not even sound in "Station". It is as you you say a type of still image although it changes with time. When it comes to medium, I do not decide in advance that my next project will be video or photography instead, I use quite simply the medium that best suits my idea. On the other hand I find freedom in relation to video because I am trained as a still image photographer. Sometimes it is nice not to have to deal with photo historical and technical knowledge and remain somewhat independent to the medium one is working with. NÖ: Even though different media are involved there are strong connections in your work both on a visual level and from the point of view of content. How are the works connected to each other? Is it as straight forward that you create new work in a conscious dialogue with the older works? Your latest piece is a video entitled "Bless You". Can you elaborate on this and is it in any way related to your previous works? UL: The idea
for "Station" grew during my work with "Pictures of a Family".
To come out from undercover felt both natural and right. It happened in
pretty much the same way with the other works, one thing leads to another.
The works do not deal with the same things but, of course, there are obvious
points of contact between them. During the creative process there is no
conscious dialogue between them, such a dialogue may possibly arise when
they are exhibited together. Niclas Östlind
is curator of Gävle Konstcentrum, Sweden. |
|
|
|