Hello, I would like to conduct an interview with you as part of my thesis work. First of all, thank you for the honor of dedicating your time and cooperation.
Initially, I would like you to tell us a little about the place you have worked and lived.
Seventeen years ago, I settled in Syros, though I am not originally from there, with the idea of building a permanent residence that would also serve as a space for seminars and cinema, arts I mainly engage with. My thought was based on my realization that Athens only has the disadvantages of a metropolis and that the Cyclades are the most unique element of the country in which I happened to be born. Of course, I necessarily travel to Athens every week to conduct seminars and lectures.
I would like to ask you about your engagement with photography. How did you start your journey in photography, and what did you photograph when you began? Talk to us about your current projects.
After devoutly practicing law for 13 years, I realized that this profession did not bring me joy, and I decided to abandon it. I wanted to engage with the arts and chose photography due to its (at least apparent) technical ease. From the beginning, I considered it as a form of visual poetry, which, however, did not burden me with the plethora of great poets of written poetry, with whom I was better acquainted. For a living, I opened a photography shop, Fotochoros, but it seems I lacked the commercial spirit. Along the way, and quite early on, I discovered that I really enjoyed teaching and, apparently, I was good at it. Thus, teaching photography, and from a point onwards cinema as well, became my profession, my passion, and my main occupation. The content of my lessons focuses (and let this not be considered presumptuous) on how students can learn to see, appreciate, and enjoy (photos or movies). The good thing about photography is that one can easily and inexpensively become a (modest) creator and not remain at the level of an art lover. Initially, I photographed by imitating photos I saw. Then, I began to discover who I am photographically, something that, of course, never stops. However, teaching helped me to see beyond and outside what I do myself. Most (and great) photographers are trapped in themselves and their style. On the other hand, teaching became a (small) obstacle in my personal work, as my students' photos partly cover my personal need to photograph. I photograph mentally through them. My plans do not change, although life's difficulties make their realization more difficult. I photograph, teach, curate exhibitions and books, write articles and books, make short videos with educational goals, and enjoy communication with people who have similar concerns to mine.
Can a photographer's personality be influenced by the art of photography?
Our personality is influenced by anything we do, but whatever we choose to do, we choose because of our personality. So, we are our choices. This personal responsibility is a result of our personal freedom. We shape the life that shapes us.
What is the type of photography that interests you the most, and where would you place portrait as an art form in photography?
For me, what we photograph (or paint, or film, etc.) does not play such an important role. How it is done is what matters most. We use descriptive thematic terms (portrait, landscape, etc.) for the sake of convenience. What should dominate in art (and I know what I'm about to say now is out of fashion) is the creator. Directors who worked in America were forced to make films that fell into specific categories (westerns, romantic dramas, etc.). However, if they were great directors (e.g., Nicholas Ray), all their movies said the same things through different scenarios. In every photograph, what counts is that the photo describes a real event (since it can do that) but ultimately creates an artistic (photographic in this case) event. I refer, of course, to photography as an art and not to photography applied in any way, which, depending on the case, obeys other goals. The great American photographer Paul Strand said regarding portrait (but this applies to every type of photography) that a portrait is a photograph of someone we do not know, whose photograph we will never forget.
Do you think it's significant for a portrait that it can be staged? Or would you prefer spontaneous expression?
All photographs are staged, that is, directed. From the moment I choose the frame, what to include and what to exclude, I've made a huge directorial intervention. Not to mention editing. Not to mention the choice of subject and so many other things. However, in photographic language, a portrait is understood to be the depiction of someone who has agreed to be photographed. The rest (the "stolen" shots, we might say) have come to be called "street portraits" or more generally "street photography," which are rather amusing terms that allow us, somewhat, to understand each other. It must be understood that we do not photograph the truth of the photographed subject, regardless of expression, but the truth of the photographer. The great portraitists in the history of photography (Julia Margaret Cameron, August Sander, Diane Arbus, etc.) have presented a polyptych of their own portrait. How else could it be possible with a click, or even more, to capture the truth of a complex personality of someone posing, with a natural or staged expression?
Indoor or outdoor photography? Which would you prefer?
Each choice imposes a different approach. And it's not only this parameter that matters. But also whether the indoor space is familiar to the photographed subject or to the photographer, if the lens angle is wide thereby involving the space, what kind of subjects are chosen (ages, gender, known or unknown to them), etc. These are choices that a (good) photographer needs to make.
Do you believe that photography belongs to a genre of art that is as important as painting, and how can they collaborate?
All arts share common concerns but each has its own field and, mainly, its absolutely unique way to transform the world. Photography has no substantial relation with painting or cinema. A painting has materiality, photography is a trace. Cinema narrates, photography describes. If we had to find relatives for it, I would compare it to poetry.
Color or black and white? If you had to choose, what would be your preference and why?
Both, depending on the case and mixed. Color in photography does not have a structural role as it does in painting. It's simply one of the elements of photographic form. Now that technology allows us, but also obliges us, to photograph in color, after choosing my good photos as they are, that is, in color, the idea comes to me that some might work better as black and white. With the press of a button, I see the conversion and decide. However, I will insist that a photo is good or bad regardless of color or black and white. If a photo is considered good mainly because of the presence of color, for me, it is bad.
Technology has strongly entered our lives. What is its relationship with photography and how much do you agree with such an intervention?
All arts have always been influenced by technology. Digital technology has literally overturned our lives and our way of thinking to a much more significant degree than it has affected photography. And there is no reason (or way) to react to the evolution of technology, even if we did not ask for it ourselves. The secret is to exploit the benefits of technology and to avoid its traps. The more technology advances, the wiser we must become to succeed. Personally, I feel fine with the new technology of photography.
What is your opinion on realism in photography? Should it be a goal in art, or would you prefer a more pictorial expression through the lens?
Art cannot be realistic. It would negate itself. However, it must use reality since our senses are the starting point, but with the goal of transcending it. The particular difficulty with photography is that reality is not just the starting point by the nature of the medium, but also the basic raw material. Therefore, if our photography is exactly what was in front of the lens, we did nothing. Nothing changed with our presence. This change has nothing to do with pictorial expression. It's about transformation. Our presence as a photographer should not betray the raw material, reality, but also should not be limited to it, as a photocopy would.
Having been involved in photography for the last 30 years, do you believe there will be big names in 40 years from now, akin to F. Margaritis and P. Moraitis?
The photographers you mentioned were very skilled professionals. Given the time and the country, they were also pioneers. The respect they had then (both photographers and those photographed) towards photography made them, if nothing else, more devoted to it than we see today with internet chatter. However, if one looks at the photos of Cameron in the 19th century, they will understand the difference. She was a great artist. Today, Greece has very good photographers, who are not widely known, as is natural. And I see no reason why there won't be others later. The problem with art, however, is not only to create but to have an audience to communicate with. Creating a cultivated audience is the issue. We come back again to the theme of cultivation, which is the basis for artistic creation.
Do you believe that today, as Greece experiences an economic crisis, we as artists have a duty to document events and everyday life through the lens?
The recording of misfortunes never helped in their elimination. After the Vietnam war, there wasn't a day without being informed of every atrocity. From the beheadings by the Islamic State to the annihilation of Syria, passing through the famine in Africa. Material or mental assistance to a suffering individual is more important for the progress of humanity than the recording of horror. Besides, photography (and all art), as Winogrand said, is incapable of capturing misery because the outcome is always "beautiful". Art is always an affirmation. But more practically speaking, horror is a hugely significant subject that resists the transformation that art attempts. And if art separates from transformation, it becomes utterly useless.
Thank you very much for your time, and I hope to see more great photos and works from you in the future!