May 2008
Or thoughts on the "projection" of photography
The recent exhibition of the "Photographic Circle" at the Benaki Museum logically caused surprise to the viewer, given that it does not follow the conventional method of displaying framed photographs on walls. The projection, especially on computer screens, collides in a sense with the perception that photography, as a two-dimensional representation, can do nothing more than mimic the behavior of its erroneously considered older sister, painting.
No matter how much we try to perceive photography as an object and attempt to make this object more precious by increasing its size, raising its price, and limiting its copies, photography remains primarily an almost intangible image with infinite reproduction possibilities. It might be interesting to add that in our language there is no word that defines this object, other than the one that defines the medium itself. There is no equivalent of "painting" and "canvas". The medium, in a way, is also the final "object".
New technologies have multiplied the possibilities of producing and disseminating photography, while simultaneously bestowing a peculiar sanctity to the television screen, imposing its presence in all levels and spaces of our personal and professional lives. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to use this screen in more formal and ceremonial spaces, such as photographic exhibition venues. Even more so considering that photography is a product of the technological revolution and continually follows its advancements.
An exhibition through projection presents many advantages, or rather fascinating peculiarities, highlighting the complexity of the identity of this initially "poor" medium, photography. There are obviously the self-evident benefits of accessible production and presentation costs, the potentially unlimited number of displayed images, reduced exhibition space, and the absence of problems related to the storage of works. And these already make projection an interesting alternative proposal to the always beloved and certainly necessary wall mounting.
Particularly interesting, however, are two other peculiarities. First and foremost is something related to the atmosphere of the exhibition space. Technical needs necessitate low lighting, which lends a suggestive quality to the space and simultaneously induces discretion and respect from the viewer. This is in ironic contrast to the usual treatment of a television screen. This suggestiveness is further emphasized by the strong and unique lighting sources, which are the displayed (projected?) images (photographs?) themselves. The lighting is no longer external but internal. The photographs illuminate the space and are not illuminated by it. Moreover, the rhythm of the projection is even more suggestive. In a traditional wall exhibition, the viewer can concentrate on a photograph for several seconds (tens of seconds are already unbearable for photography, which cannot withstand such persistent scrutiny), but always ends up voluntarily turning away from that specific photograph to move to another, thus relieving any potential emotion. However, during an exhibition projection, the photographs impose themselves and resist the viewer, through their own timing, increasing the intensity and prolonging the emotion.
Plato Rivellis