Watched an interesting film this week. “Certified Copy” by director Abbas Kiarostami. “A gallery owner living in a Tuscan village who attends a lecture by a British author on authenticity and fakery in art.” This film came up while doing research on art/directing/photography, reality and actuality. The above synopsis is what peaked my interest.
The story is about two people who meet, have a brief encounter, leaving the audience to decide if the relationship between the them is real or fake? I watched the film to see if I could see the difference between authentic and fake and how it may apply to “art-photographers.” See if my instincts are right, that most are fakes, and if it even matters?
Forgetting the image or the process, I am interested in the artists “thinking” part of the idea or concept. Currently I see a lot of the image making processes based on destruction, or shock. My problem with that is: The toy is taken apart and unable to be put back to-gether again, in any shape or form. It is as if the pieces should suffice as some new great discovery, or form of art.
It has also reached a stage where the photograph is an accepted substitute for the actual thing. In the good ol’ days, we used to go to the gallery to see a particular image, like the Mona Lisa at the Louvre. Now days, all I have to do is search the Google for a 1000 views of the ML with a closer and better view than if I had to go there in real life. Now days, I need more than a digital copy of the image, or even the real thing. This is why I am attracted to the concept of the ‘idea’ of the image making process. This interests me more than the actual image itself. Authentic or fake.
Laura Nissensen, developed film in her own urine, a very weak attempt at shock. I wonder if her urine was light or dark yellow, and how that would have affected the contrast or the image density? So what!!! One can develop film in almost anything from coffee and wine to flowers and it will work. WHAT’S NEW ABOUT URINE, PLEASE!!!! it is just a variation of liquid. Maybe if she used my urine, I would be impressed! Okay, so the thought process is maybe primitively interesting, but it is so low brow, it negates any appreciation I might have for the idea.
Destruction or shock is not enough, nor if it is authentic or real.. Most images today are boring, worn out, or old hat. Humpty Dumpty was pushed, now he has to be put to-gether again, as a lean, mean, good-looking fighting machine. This is what’s needed.
Certified Copy. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020773/?ref_=nv_sr_1
Humpty Dumpty image: Public domain. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HumptyDumpty.jpg