-
“In fact, the whole history of represen-tation is at stake,
insofar as the tech-
nologies of the artificial are redefining therelationship
between subjectivity and itsOther.” 1
In the past few years, the animated dis-course about the digital
in photography (andelsewhere) has been conspicuously sub-dued. It
appears that the generally identified“liquefaction” of the image,
as well as of thesystem of representation in general, hasbeen
established as a not too interesting fact- the beat goes on.
Whereas George Ballardcould still claim in 1970: “I do not
believethat organic sex - body to body, skin to skin- will be
possible in the future, simplybecause all that should have any
meaningfor us must be settled into the domain ofmedia values and
experiences,”2 the corre-sponding ideology, long disappointed by
thecircumstance that the mind is incapable,now as much as in the
past, of migratinginto a machine, has turned its back to
suchutopias. The digital, as a utopia, is present-ly having its
comeback, but rather as a prof-itable base for advertising, fashion
photogra-phy, and product presentation; in otherwords, it has long
become an everyday phe-nomenon. The issue of artificiality in
repre-sentation has turned into some sort of visualrhetoric, even a
show of commodities. Pa-rallel to the assertion of a “digital
lifestyle,”where telephones are becoming camerasand audio gadgets
and where more imagesare made, circulated (and probably
deletedagain) than ever before, the role of the imageas an
“instrument” in the production of au-thenticity has faded away.
But if the diagnosis of present circum-stances related to the
image, such as offeredby Timothy Druckrey, is correct, then
this“normalisation” of the digital in everyday lifemust be an
illusive one, for something mustbe inscribed into that vast image
production,into the obvious and permanently present,but at the same
time incomprehensiblemanipulation of images, that points to
thedramatic reshaping of representation rela-tions. And it is
precisely the debates on thefluidity of contemporary imagery, on
the abil-ity of image to be transformed and almostendlessly
circulated, which pushes the issueof realism into new contexts,
characterisedby a noticeable yearning for authenticity andreal-time
experience, which has more thanjust infected the mass-media and the
publicvisual culture in the past few years.
“Ustvari je na kocki cjelokupna povi-jest reprezentacije, i to u
onoj mjeri u
kojoj tehnologije umjetnoga iznova odre-uju odnos izmeu
subjektivnosti i njezinaDrugoga.” 1
Posljednjih se godina uzbueni diskurso digitalnome u fotografiji
(i ne samo ondje)neobiËno primirio. »ini se da je opÊenitoutvreno
“topljenje” slike, kao i sustava re-prezentacije uopÊe, sazrjelo u
neku ne od-viπe zanimljivu Ëinjenicu - the beat goes on.Dok George
Ballard joπ 1970. godine izjav-ljuje: “Ne vjerujem da Êe organski
seks -tijelo uz tijelo, koæa uz koæu - ubuduÊe bitimoguÊ,
jednostavno zato πto se sve ono πtobi za nas trebalo imati nekakvo
znaËenjemora smjestiti u vrijednosnu i iskustvenudomenu medija”,2 u
meuvremenu se takvaideologija, odavno razoËarana Ëinjenicomda duh
ni danas nije sposoban preseliti seu stroj, odrekla sliËnih
utopija. Digitala kaoutopija sada se uglavnom vraÊa u
oblikuisplative podloge za reklamu, modnu foto-grafiju i
prezentaciju proizvoda, πto znaËi daje odavno postala svakodnevna
pojava;pitanje umjetnoga u reprezentaciji izokrenu-lo se u neku
vrstu vizualne retorike, pa Ëaki u performance robe. U istoj mjeri
u kojojse etablira “digitalni stil æivota”, a telefonise pretvaraju
u fotoaparate i mp3 playere,nastaje, cirkulira (i vjerojatno se
briπe) viπeslika nego ikada prije te se rasplinjava ulo-ga slike
kao “orua” za proizvodnju auten-tiËnosti.
Ali ako je dijagnoza danaπnje situacijeu pogledu slika, kakvu
nalazimo u citatuTimothyja Druckreyja, ispravna, onda je
ta“normalizacija” digitalnoga u svakodnevicinuæno varka, onda u toj
nepreglednoj proiz-vodnji slika, toj oËitoj i trajno prisutnoj,
aipak neshvatljivoj manipulaciji slikama, mo-ra biti upisano neπto
πto ukazuje na drama-tiËno prekrajanje odnosa reprezentacije.
Aupravo rasprave o fluidnosti suvremene sli-kovnosti, o
preinaËljivosti slike i njezinoj go-tovo neograniËenoj cirkulaciji,
guraju pitanjerealizma u nove kontekste, u kojima je uoË-ljiva
teænja za autentiËnoπÊu i doæivljajemistinskog vremena, koja je
viπe nego zarazilamasovne medije i preko njih druπtvenu vi-zualnu
kulturu posljednjih godina.
Tu je raspravu o transformaciji slikov-nosti, prema mojem
miπljenju, obiljeæio niznesporazuma, a na podruËju fotografije
ma-nifestirala se prije svega u kontekstu tehni-ke - Ëinilo se da
se nazire neka nova esteti-ka, svojstvena slici, u kojoj se
istodobno
72
reinhard braun
treba li nam novi dispozitiv?should we write anew
dispositive?
t l
1. B. Probst, iz / from: "EXPOSURE # 9: N.Y.C.,GRAND CENTRAL
STATION, 12.18.01, 1:21 p.m.",20012. K. Schuster, Flip-Flops,
2004
t
1 Timothy Druckrey, "Cn", u: Brigitte Felderer (ur.),
Wunschmaschine Welterfindung. BeË: Springer, 1996.
2 Mak Dery, Cyber. Die Kultur der Zukunft. Berlin: Volk &
Welt, 1997. (engl. izdanje: New York: EscapeVelocity, Grove Press,
1996.).
l
1 Timothy Druckrey, "Cn", in: Brigitte Felderer (ed.),
Wunschmaschine Welterfindung. Vienna: Springer, 1996.
2 Mak Dery, Cyber. Die Kultur der Zukunft. Berlin: Volk &
Welt, 1997 (engl. edition: New York: Escape Velocity, Grove Press,
1996).
74_ZU_4_9 6/7/05 02:21 Page 72
-
73
12
74_ZU_4_9 6/7/05 02:21 Page 73
-
74
3
4
5
74_ZU_4_9 6/7/05 02:21 Page 74
-
3. K. Schuster, Location 2001.2, 20014. K. Schuster, One Hotel,
20025. K. Schuster, Madonna, 2003
moglo prikazati sve na svemu, a podrijetloslika se rasplinjavalo
te se njihova virtual-nost Ëinila nezaobilaznom. Meutim,
kons-tatacija Ëinjenice da je indeksikalnost slikeuzdrmana iz
temelja sama po sebi nemaneposrednih posljedica za trajno nuænu
de-batu o slikama kao kulturnoj pozadini druπ-tva, za koju je
cjelokupnost informacijskihmaπinerija kao dijela stvarnog - a ne
utopij-skog - ekonomskog druπtva stege postalavaænija od pitanja o
tijelu i njegovoj spolno-sti. Ono πto je na kocki ne moæe se
izrazitiu kategorijama transformacije koja je svojs-tvena slici,
veÊ se tiËe prije svega one ras-prave koja sliku shvaÊa kao
kulturnu tehni-ku i koja, osim promjena u tehniËkim osno-vama
proizvodnje slika, uzima u obzir i pro-mjene na drugim podruËjima
kulture. Kakoje to formulirao Tom Holert, upravo su “na-Ëini
koriπtenja slika i njihova instrumental-izacija” ono πto odreuje
odnose vidljivosti.3
Situaciju s danaπnjim slikama potankosam opisao drugdje.4 Slike
su sve vaænije sobzirom na to u kojem se obliku mogu isko-ristiti i
konzumirati, πto nude u pogledu re-prezentacije i komunikacije,
kakve im semoguÊnosti reprezentacije pripisuju ili mogupripisati,
koje sve tehnologije identitetamogu nagomilati, ukratko: kakav je
njihovperformativni sadræaj. “Na ovom podruËjunovoga slike prelaze
granice diskursa i me-dija te djeluju kao oni koji ubrzavaju
komu-nikaciju, kao strojevi za evidenciju”,5 pri Ëe-mu se
“evidencija” ne shvaÊa kao dokazstvarnosti, veÊ kao potvrda
svojstava nekogdogaaja. Ta skica odgovara opisu subjek-tivnosti
kakav je dao Félix Guattari: “Sub-jektivnost ne moæe postojati sama
za sebe ini u kojem sluËaju ne moæe posluæiti kao os-nova za
postojanje subjekta.” Umjesto toga,on opisuje subjekt, “proizvodnju
subjek-tivnosti”, kao neπto πto je odreeno “fluid-nim
oznaËiteljima”: kulturnim okoliπem,potroπnjom kulture, ideoloπkim
gadgetima i,naposljetku, “cjelokupnoπÊu informacijskemaπinerije”.6
Dakle, slike nisu jedine kojevrπe pritisak na krhki odnos slike i
Drugoga.
S obzirom na tu meusobnu poveza-nost tehnologije,
subjektivnosti, kulturnihtehnologija i ekonomskih Ëimbenika,
pita-nje “digitalnoga u fotografiji” upravo se nepostavlja kao
pitanje o digitalnome - kaopostupku ili novom obliku proizvodnje,
ma-nipulacije i aproprijacije slika, njihove dalj-nje obrade i
vrednovanja; radi se zapravo opitanju kakvo mjesto - po moguÊnosti
novo- time biva stvoreno i utvreno za slike kaokulturne
tehnologije, kao tehnologiju kul-
This debate on the transformation ofimagery in the sphere of
photography, whichhas, in my opinion, been marked by a seriesof
misunderstandings, has manifested itselfprimarily in terms of
technology - it seemedfor a while that a new aesthetics was on
therise, immanent to the image, in which every-thing could be
represented on anything at thesame time, while the origin of images
wasfading away, making their virtuality seemunavoidable. But mere
observation of the factthat the indexicality of image has been
pro-foundly shaken, cannot directly affect thepermanently needed
debate on images as thecultural background of a society, the
debatefor which the entire information machinery,which makes part
of an actual - not a utopi-an - economic society of restraint, has
beco-me more important than the question aboutthe body and its
sexuality. What is at stakehere cannot be formulated in terms of
trans-formation immanent to the image; it con-cerns primarily the
debate that understandsthe image as a cultural technique and
that,beside the change of the technological basisfor image
production, takes into considera-tion changes in other fields of
culture. AsTom Holert has formulated, it is “the ways ofusing and
the instrumentalization of images”that determine the relations of
visibility.3
I have described elsewhere and in detailthe situation of present
imageries:4 imagesare becoming increasingly important depend-ing on
the form in which they can be usedand consumed, what they have to
offer re-garding representation and communication,the possibilities
of representation that are orcould be inscribed into them, the
technolo-gies of the Self that can be accumulated,briefly: on their
performance content. “In thisinnovative field, images function
across theboundaries of discourse and the media ascommunication
accelerators and evidencemachines”,5 in which “evidence” should
notbe understood as the proof of a reality, but asconfirming the
features of an event. This draftfits to the description of
subjectivity suggest-ed by Félix Guattari: “Subjectivity
cannotexist autonomously and it can never serve asa basis for the
existence of a subject.” He hasdescribed the subject, the
“production ofsubjectivity”, as determined mostly by
“liquidsignifiers”: by cultural environment, consum-mation of
culture, ideological gadgets, andeventually “the entire information
machin-ery.”6 The precarious relationship betweenimage and the
Other suffers pressure frommore sides than just that of images.
75
t
3 Tom Holert, "Bildfähigkeiten", u: idem (ur.), Imagineering.
Visuelle Kultur und Politik der Sichtbarkeit. Köln: Oktagon,
2000.
4 “Weil ich es mir Wert bin / Because I'm Worth It", Camera
Austria 74/2001.
5 Tom Holert, Bildfähigkeiten, op. cit.6 Henning Schmidgen
(ur.), Ästhetik des
Maschinismus. Texte zu und von Félix Guattari.Berlin: Merve,
1995.
l
3 Tom Holert, "Bildfähigkeiten", in: idem (ed.), Imagineering.
Visuelle Kultur und Politik der Sichtbarkeit. Cologne: Oktagon,
2000.
4 “Weil ich es mir Wert bin / Because I'm Worth It", Camera
Austria 74/2001.
5 Tom Holert, Bildfähigkeiten, op. cit.6 Henning Schmidgen
(ed.), Ästhetik des
Maschinismus. Texte zu und von Félix Guattari. Berlin: Merve,
1995.
74_ZU_4_9 6/7/05 02:21 Page 75
-
Against this background of interrelatedtechnology, subjectivity,
cultural technolo-gies, and economic factors, the question ofthe
“digital in the photography” arises not asa question about the
digital - as a procedure,a novelty in producing, manipulating,
appro-priating, processing, and evaluating images;it is rather the
question of which place - pos-sibly a new one - is generated and
confirmedfor images as cultural technologies, as atechnology of
culture: confirmed in terms ofhegemonic access to this culture. It
is nomore and no less than the complex “interplayof visuality,
camera, institution, discourse,bodies, and figurativeness” in
general.7 Andthe camera, itself digital, is only one amongthe
factors in this interplay.
To what extent the reconfiguration ofimage is playing a role
within actual art, andto what extent it is happening regardless
ofthe issue about the digital, that I can onlydraft here on the
basis of two positions. Al-though starting from what I consider two
verydifferent perspectives, they address preciselythis issue of
image, of its permanent shiftingof function within the
circumstances of cul-tural exchange, and the forever
precariousrelationship between image and the subject.
In several series such as the Selbstorga-nisation
(Self-organisation) and Locations,Austrian Klaus Schuster 8 has
recently add-ressed the problem of contemporary imageryand its
precarious, borderline status in thecontext of dispersing
discourses on realities.Thereby, he has availed himself of
photogra-phy as a visual background, which he simu-lated without
crossing the boundary to the(supposedly) “realistic” image. He
finds pho-tography interesting because it is composed,as a medium
and a form of discourse, byoverlapping technology (technicity of
cultureas a whole), knowledge, and art. The seriesof Klaus Schuster
transpose us into the midstof staging the world as a process that
isimmanent to the image and at the same timeimmanent to technology:
it generates imagesof the world which no longer need that
world.
What is created in the process are“ambiguous images,” as Timothy
Druckreyhas called them, which oscillate between hy-pothesis and
reality. In this sense, the workof Klaus Schuster documents the
permanent-ly changing “relationship between the repre-sented
object, the applied technique, andcontextual knowledge.” 9 The
shift, which hasgrasped and holds in its grasp the relation-ship
between these parameters, can no lon-ger be reconstructed through
the notion of
ture: utvreno u smislu hegemonijskog pris-tupa toj kulturi. Radi
se ni manje ni viπenego o sloæenoj “meuigri vizualnosti, apa-rata,
institucije, diskursa, tijelâ i figurativ-nosti” uopÊe.7 A aparat,
i sam digitalan, tekje jedan od Ëimbenika u toj meuigri.
Kakvu ulogu ta novostvorena konfigu-racija slike igra u okviru
danaπnje umjet-nosti i u kojoj se mjeri to odvija nevezano
uzpitanje o digitalnome, ovdje mogu skiciratisamo na osnovi dvaju
stajaliπta, koja se,iako iz vrlo razliËitih perspektiva, premamojem
miπljenju odnose upravo na to pita-nje o slici, o neprestanom
pomicanju njezi-ne funkcije u okolnostima kulturne razmje-ne ili
pak na trajno krhku vezu izmeu slikei subjekta.
Austrijanac Klaus Schuster 8 u nekolikoje serija posljednjih
godina (npr. Selbstor-ganisation ili Locations)
problematiziraoupravo pitanje suvremene slikovnosti i njez-ina
neizvjesnog, graniËnog statusa u okvirusve rastresenijih diskursa o
stvarnostima.Pritom se Klaus Schuster sluæi fotografijomkao
vizualnom pozadinom koju simulira neprelazeÊi granicu prema
(pretpostavlja se)“realistiËkoj” slici. Fotografija je za
njegazanimljiva zato πto je kao medij i oblik dis-kursa naËinjena
upravo preklapanjem teh-nologije (tehniËnosti kulture u
cijelosti),znanja i umjetnosti. Serije Klausa Schuste-ra vode nas u
inscenaciju svijeta kao processvojstven slici i istodobno svojstven
tehno-logiji: tako nastaju slike svijeta kojima tajsvijet u osnovi
viπe nije potreban.
Ono πto pritom nastaje su “dvoznaËneslike”, kako ih naziva
Timothy Druckrey,koje se kolebaju izmeu hipoteze i stvar-nosti.
Radovi Klausa Schustera u tom smis-lu dokumentiraju neprestano
promjenjivu“vezu izmeu naslikanog predmeta, primi-jenjene tehnike i
kontekstualnog znanja”.9
Pomak koji je zahvatio i zahvaÊa vezu izme-u tih parametara ne
moæe se viπe rekon-struirati samo kroz pojam slike. “Slika po-staje
objekt æudnje, æudnje za znaËenjem zakoje osjeÊamo da nedostaje.”10
Tu moæemododati: i za stvarnoπÊu, za koju znamo dane postoji.
Njemica nastanjena u New Yorku,Barbara Probst11 se, Ëini se,
posveÊuje prijesvega problemu koji je svojstven fotografiji:pitanju
trenutka koji se pretvara u sliku ikoji u teoriji fotografije ima
dugaËku povi-jest - faktiËnost trenutka upravo je jedan odtemeljnih
mitova vezanih uz fotografsko. Alikakvo bi znaËenje mogla imati
pretpostav-ljena koincidencija pojave i snimanja?
6-7. B Probst, "EXPOSURE # 11 B: N.Y.C., DUANE& CHURCH,
06.10.02, 3:22 p.m.", 20028-9. B Probst, "EXPOSURE # 16: N.Y.C.,
249W 34th ST, 12.07.02, 4:29 p.m.", 2002
Fotografije objavljene dozvolom autoraArtists have confirmed
reproduction of the aboveworks for magazine Æivot umjetnosti
76
t
7 W.J.T. Mitchell, "Was wollen Bilder?", u: Springerin (ur.),
Widerstände. Kunst - Cultural Studies - Neue Medien, Wien-Bozen:
Folio Verlag, 1999.
8 Usp. Reinhard Braun, "Zweideutige Bilder", Camera Austria
83/2003.
9 Christian Höller, "Deplazierte Moderne. Zur fotografischen
Praxis von Christopher Williems", u: Ruth Maurer-Horak et al.
(ur.), Imag:/images. Positionen zur zeitgenössischen Fotografie.
BeË: Passagen, 2001.
10 Douglas Crimp, "Pictures", ibidem.11 Usp. Reinhard Braun,
"Eine Belichtung der
Fotografie", Camera Austria 85/2004.
l
7 W.J.T. Mitchell, "Was wollen Bilder?", in: springerin (ed.),
Widerstände. Kunst - Cultural Studies - Neue Medien. Vienna-Bozen:
Folio Verlag, 1999.
8 Cf. Reinhard Braun, "Zweideutige Bilder," Camera Austria
83/2003.
9 Christian Höller, "Deplazierte Moderne. Zur fotografischen
Praxis von Christopher Williems," in: Ruth Maurer-Horak et al.
(ed.), Imag:/images. Positionen zur zeitgenössischen Fotografie.
Vienna: Passagen, 2001.
74_ZU_4_10 12/7/05 18:47 Page 76
-
77
6 7
8 9
74_ZU_4_9 6/7/05 02:21 Page 77
-
image. “Image is becoming an object of year-ning, yearning for a
meaning which is knownto be missing.”10 And, one might add, for
areality which is known not to exist.
Barbara Probst,11 German artist living inNew York, appears to be
devoting herself pri-marily to a problem that is immanent to
pho-tography: the question of the moment whichis turned into an
image. This issue has a longhistory within the theory of
photography - thefactualness of the moment is actually one ofthe
founding myths of the photographical.But what meaning is there to
be found in thesupposed coincidence of appearance and re-cording?
Is the photographic image with-drawing from its cultural
discoursiveness inthat moment? Is it at all possible to thinkabout
an image in its “pure” materializationof a recording? In the series
entitled “exposu-res”, Barbara Probst exposes a transient mo-ment
to several cameras: exposure, disclo-sure, uncovering, and
unveiling, synonymsfor the photographic practice, are staged andat
the same time relativized. She spreads thismoment in various
perspectives like a fan,each of them both true and insufficient.
Thefactualness is set on the scene in tableauscomposed of several
pieces, as a construct ofthe photograph itself. The “exposures”
showthat omissions and contradictions, and par-ticularly
substitutions and adaptations, makepart of the photographic
practice as such,they indicate the fact that an image not onlyshows
something, but at the same timecauses something else, another image
(andwith it some other possible reality) to vanish.Systematic
relations between and withinphotographic discourses, the image and
thegaze, as well as the resulting lines of flight,developed by
Barbara Probst in her “expo-sures”, seem likewise to question the
photo-graphic image in one of its precarious andevasive foundations
- regardless of its tech-nology, the image is analysed in its
culturalfunctionality and even dissected into its con-stituent
parts.
Thus, Klaus Schuster has pushed thequestion of representation,
which appears tobe at stake, into the domain of yearning forthe
meaning, forever realized as the interplayof image techniques,
independently fromtheir technological platform. The
immanenttechnicity of image production is thus joinedby the moments
of some subjective Imagi-nary, which seems again to be based
uponthe experience of collective image produc-tion. In this way,
the image formations ofKlaus Schuster suffer that “disturbance”,
the
IzmiËe li fotografska slika u tom trenutkusvojoj kulturnoj
diskurzivizaciji? Moæe li seuopÊe zamisliti neka slika u “Ëistoj”
materi-jalizaciji snimanja? U seriji Barbare Probstpod nazivom
“exposures” jedan se prolaznitrenutak izlaæe veÊem broju kamera:
osvjet-ljavanje, ogoljavanje, otkrivanje i raskrivan-je kao
sinonimi fotografske prakse tu su in-scenirani i istodobno
relativizirani. Autoricarastvara taj trenutak u lepezu razliËitih
per-spektiva, od kojih je svaka za sebe istinita,ali i nedostatna.
FaktiËnost je postavljenana scenu u viπedijelnim tabloima kao
kon-strukt same fotografije. Serija “exposures”pokazuje da su
izostavljanja i proturjeËja, aosobito nadomjeπtanja i
prilagoavanja, diofotografske prakse kao takve te da ukazujuna to
kako slika ne samo da neπto pokazu-je, veÊ istodobno Ëini da
nestane neπto dru-go, neka druga slika (a time i neka drugamoguÊa
stvarnost). »ini se da sustavni od-nosi izmeu i unutar fotografskih
diskursa,slika i pogled te pravci bijega koji iz njih re-zultiraju,
a koje Barbara Probst razvija u se-riji “exposures”, takoer dovode
u pitanjefotografsku sliku na njezinim krhkim i pro-laznim
temeljima - neovisno o pitanju teh-nologije slike, ona se analizira
u svojoj kul-turnoj funkcionalnosti i Ëak razlaæe na sas-tavne
dijelove.
Klaus Schuster, dakle, pomiËe pitanjeo reprezenaciji, onakvoj
kakva se Ëini ugro-æenom, na podruËje æudnje za znaËenjem,koja se
uvijek iznova javlja u meuigri stehnikama slike, neovisno o
njihovoj tehno-loπkoj platformi. TehniËnosti proizvodnje,koja je
svojstvena slici, pridruæuju se, dakle,trenuci subjektivnog
Imaginarnoga koje se,pak, kako se Ëini, zasniva na iskustvu
ko-lektivne proizvodnje slike. Pritom slikovneformacije Klausa
Schustera doæivljavajuonu “smetnju”, pomak i viπeznaËnost, kojaih
uzdiæe iznad radova koji primjenjuju digi-talnu sliku kao igraliπte
za samodopadnesimulacije ili artificijelnu originalnost.
Barbara Probst pak uspostavlja kalei-doskop reæima pogleda u
kojemu se dogaavizualni diskurs, sukob perspektiva i per-cepcija, a
samim time u njima vlada isukob znaËenja. Na taj naËin autorica
pred-stavlja fotografiju kao medij koji na specifi-Ëan naËin
povezuje pogled, percepciju,aparat i sliku kao preduvjet za
gledljivost iprikazljivost, koje i dalje ostaju aktualne.
Smatram da ta dva potpuno suprot-stavljena stajaliπta i
strategije pokazuju dokoje su mjere tehnike slike prije svega i
uprvom redu moguÊnosti za kulturne prakse
78
t
12 Timothy Druckrey, "Fatale Aussicht", u: Hubertus von
Amelunxen et al. (ur.), Fotografie nach der Fotografie. Dresden:
Verlag der Kunst, 1995.
13 Usp. Marshall McLuhan, Die magischen Kanäle. Understanding
Media. Basel, 1995.
l
10 Douglas Crimp, "Pictures", ibidem.11 Cf. Reinhard Braun,
"Eine Belichtung der
Fotografie," Camera Austria 85/2004.12 Timothy Druckrey, "Fatale
Aussicht", in: Hubertus
von Amelunxen et al. (ed.), Fotografie nach der Fotografie.
Dresden: Verlag der Kunst, 1995.
13 Cf. Marshall McLuhan, Die magischen Kanäle. Understanding
Media. Basle, 1995.
74_ZU_4_10 12/7/05 18:47 Page 78
-
proizvodnje znaËenja. Predmet percepcijeproizlazi iz te naknadne
rekonstrukcije po-moÊu kulturno kodificiranih medija (jezika,pisma,
slike): bez medija nema ni “pred-meta”, a bez predmeta nema
percepcije. Abez znaËenja nema ni “pojava” nekog stvar-nog svijeta.
Upravo zato πto se u fotograf-skim operacijama ne radi o
stvarnostima,veÊ o njihovoj rekonstrukciji i njezinim
pred-uvjetima, o “procesu u kojemu se subjekt iobjekt posreduju
pomoÊu sustava reprezen-tacije”,12 ne nazire se kraj fotografske
prak-se kao specifiËnog oblika tog posredovanja.Jedan medij moæe
postati sadræaj drugogmedija,13 ali nijedan medij ne moæe se
bezostatka zamijeniti drugim.
Smetnja, pomak i viπeznaËnost, sukobperspektiva i time
nemoguÊnost autentifika-cije u samom mediju slike i kroz njega
(nesamo u smislu fotografije) nisu tek signatu-ra digitalnoga, veÊ
su oduvijek upisani uodnos izmeu slike i subjekta. Dakle, ako jena
kocki povijest reprezentacije, onda se tonije dogodilo tek s
prodorom digitalnoga, ne-go se radi o permanentnom procesu
trans-formacije predmetnosti, koncepata stvarnos-ti i sustavâ
reprezentacije. t
shift and the vagueness which raise themabove those works of art
which employ thedigital image as a playground for self-impor-tant
simulations or artificial segregations.
On the other hand, Barbara Probst hasinstalled a kaleidoscope of
gaze tracking, inwhich a visual discourse is taking place,
aconflict of perspectives and perceptions, andtherefore also a
conflict of meanings. Thus,she has presented photography as a
medi-um, a gaze or perception, as the camera andthe image in a
special relationship, a precon-dition for an observabilty - actual
now just asmuch as before - and presentability.
I believe that both positions and strate-gies, though absolutely
opposed, demon-strate the extent to which image techniquesare
primarily and above all possibilities forcultural practices of
generating meaning. Theobject of perception owes its existence to
thissubsequent reconstruction with the help ofculturally codified
media (language, writing,or image): without a medium, there is
no“object”; without an object, there is no per-ception. And without
the meaning there areno “phenomena” of any real world.
Preciselybecause in photographic operations the pointis not the
realities, but their reconstructionand its conditions, the “process
in whichboth subject and object are mediatedthrough a system of
representation,”12 onecan not foresee an end to the practice
ofphotography as a specific form of this media-tion. It is perhaps
possible that one mediumshould become the content of another,13
butit is not possible that one medium should becompletely
substituted by another.
The disturbance, the shift and the va-gueness, the conflict of
perspectives and con-sequently the impossibility of an
authentica-tion in and through the image medium itself(not only in
terms of photography), are notmerely features of the digital, but
are foreverinscribed into the relationship between ima-ge and the
subject. Therefore, if the history ofrepresentation be at stake,
then it did nothappen with the dawn of the digital, but is
apermanent process of the transformation ofobjectness, of concepts
of reality, and sys-tems of representation. l
prijevod / translation: Marina Miladinov
79
≥ Reinhard Braun - studirao povijestumjetnosti i filozofiju,
æivi i radi u Grazu. Od1987. djeluje kao autor i kustos.
Realiziraobrojne izloæbe, publikacije i predavanja opovijesti i
teoriji fotografije i medija. Sura-uje s umjetnicima na medijskim
projekti-ma; suosnivaË udruge MiDiHy (1999.) kojaje pokrenula
nekoliko projekata posveÊenihutjecaju tehnologije medija na
kulturu. Od2003. godine djeluje kao kustos galerijeCamera Austria u
Grazu.
Reinhard Braun - studied art history andphilosophy; lives and
works in Graz,Austria. Since 1987 active as author andcurator of
numerous exhibition projects, pu-blications, lectures on the
history and theo-ry of photography and media.
Project-basedcooperations with artists in the field of me-dia;
co-founder of the MiDiHy association in1999, which launched several
projects onthe cultural impact of media technology.Since 2003
curator for Camera Austria,Graz.
74_ZU_4_9 6/7/05 02:21 Page 79
