HANNA WENTZ
Digital images should not be understood as reflections of human vision, but outputs of machinic systems with their own sensory logics.
Cameras are computers that record, compress and classify.
They do not see as we do, we must look beyond.
What are you really trying to capture through these systems and cameras ?
the image itself,
the process of seeing,
or the way the machine perceives ?
I definitely think I’m trying to see how the machine sees. Everytime I click the shutter or trigger the shutter I really have very little idea of the outcome of the final image. I like feeling like I don’t have full control over the image.
One book that was key to me thinking about photography’s relationship to chance. Photography and the Art of Chance by Robin Kelsey.
So many iconic photos throughout history have been luck and timing and I’m interested in larger ideas around artistic authorship which I know you touch on in a question below. Obviously the image is a sort of quasi recording of what the machine “sees”. Especially for my sensortypes since they are sort of a multi step process to make I kind of view it in stages. I see the RAW image that I get directly from the camera as an example of what the camera “sees”
So I will use the above example to try and explain. I view the left most image as the example of what the camera “sees” and then I see the middle (JPEG) and right (RAW) versions as examples of what the camera “perceives” because the two edited versions involve additional processing on my part to sort of reveal that part of the image to a human viewer. IDK I’m just coming up with this as I write. But I think that is why I find these types of photos interesting. Because it sort of reveals that machines still interpret and capture data and information even if humans view that information as not useful or valuable to a machine data is data and therefore usable. I think I also like still photography because its kind of a record of like space and time in a compressed form. Because I use motion and different exposure lengths I feel like all of my images are almost like a 3D box that holds this little chunk of time or mini performance and the image is a rendering of that into a 2D form. I’m definitely interested in 2D and 3D and how we translate information into different forms. Like how when you see motion blur in a photo it implies time passing. There is a book that sort of gets into this called The Railway Journey by Wolfgang Shivelbusch and another scholar who I really love Jonathan Crary also talks about the relationship between art, technology, perception, seeing and time etc. Like I just think it’s interesting to think about the ways in which art captures the time period its from innately through the technology used to produce it in some ways even more so than style or representational trends. Like even the way paint is commercially produced now varies greatly to the early days of oil painting also we forget that things like oil paint at one time literally were technological inventions. So I just think the best art is always interacting with technology in some ways and trying to figure out it’s limits and how you show those limits.
Who is actually producing the image ?
I mean ultimately I am producing the image. But my production of the image relies on not only the camera but electricity, the factory workers who assembled my camera, the people who mined the rare earth metals that go into the chip, sensor and batteries. Then there are all the artists who have influenced me and my friends and the lights and the list could go on forever. That is what makes art or an image interesting is its all these little pieces that have to come together over time for anything actually tangible to ever emerge. Like when people sometimes ask how long it takes me to make an image I have zero way to quantify the amount of time because I just ultimately believe in relies on so many factors and I like that digital images are flexible so everytime i open it I can edit or resize or reprint on a new surface etc.
Many artists use technology to simulate reality. You seem to use it to expose the structure behind it. What do you think we overlook when we look at digital images ?
We overlook everything. But unfortunately i think some of the negative consequences of living in such an intensely visual culture and at a time with neoliberal culture wars and politics there is an overemphasis on identity and false notions that somehow exterior looks or labels can capture reality when the truth is no amount of words or images (from portraits to xrays etc) can actually capture what a human is or how they matter and what they are capable of. I just think digital images especially the emphasis on seamlessness and clarity makes us forget about depth and then our experiences are ultimately more shallow because we are never interacting with objects or images in a longer more sustained way that questions structure and interiority and essence.
You often reveal the errors and limits of the camera. What do those imperfections teach you about how machines understand the world ?
I think machines like people just all should be teaching us that there is no unified world that exists. At the end of the day every person, animal, machine, plant and thing sees, perceives, understands, reads, comprehends, lives, interacts (whatever verb you want to use) differently and so I think its just that we need to stop searching or hoping for absolute truth or transcendence.
Read more: |