Mr. Rivelli, to what extent do the old ideological distinctions regarding the nature of photography and the distinctions made regarding its reception by a specific audience still apply today?
There is a trend that does not want to make a distinction between commercial or applied photography and what is called artistic or personal photography. This trend justifies its view, I believe, from the fact that today's interest in art leans more towards the role of the functions of mediums rather than the creator's relationship with the object. The photographer as an entity is devalued. From such a stance, distinction is really unthinkable. However, I am much more attracted to the presence of a creator who gives significance to the things we see, while these things in themselves are not that important. Honestly, I don't believe that whatever we see in a photograph is so significant. A beautiful woman, a tree laden with fruit, a secluded beach. Allow me to prefer reality. So, for all these to have some photographic significance, their creator must give it to them. And he will do so according to his perspective. On the other hand, all printed materials address the maximum number of people, hence they are obliged to use a common photographic language, understandable, so as to reach the world. It is almost impossible to distinguish photographers' personalities in photos of applied aesthetics. Clichés of photographers, yes, standardization of photographers, yes, but personality does not come out under these conditions. An advertising photographer does not aspire to express his soul in the pages of a magazine, for example. He simply wants to achieve good quality and for his subject to be able to communicate with as many people as possible. For me, artistic photography is something more complex, deeper, more mysterious.
So, there is no room for a photograph published in a widely circulated print to operate autonomously from the consumerism philosophy it accepts, making the audience suspect and creating a different kind of artistic stimulus for them?
There is an internationally established perception of what a photograph in such prints should be like. It does not depend on the photographers, for whom this would be a challenge, but on the businessmen who manage them. And let's say a photographer dares to do it. The question is whether he himself will withstand it and how the advertisers will accept it. Don't forget that today the norms of commerce are much more specific and strict than thirty years ago. If circulation starts to fall, I don't know how much the publisher will financially and mentally withstand this cost to form a new audience segment. But I don't consider myself suitable to give a complete answer to this issue.
Could you identify the characteristics and codify the differences between applied-commercial and artistic photography?
It's not that easy, because while we can set some criteria in applied photography, we cannot do the same in artistic photography because there, if a photographer is good, he has his own language. Therefore, artistic photography is a photograph with less tangible proofs of its quality, because exactly to seek this quality we must go deeper into its content. I would also say something else: it impresses me that we want to equate application with interiority, when we know that nowadays speed and ease of the message is favored due to a plethora of messages. I think the directors of newspapers and magazines have understood this better than anyone and do not want "difficult" texts or "difficult" photographs, because they know that the reader will consume this material with advertising speed and then discard it and go to the next. Thus, the power of the material must be absolute and immediately understandable. Artistic photography requires a duration of contact, a repetition of contact. It would be funny to have a photograph that to be enjoyed by the viewer would need to be seen several times and revisited the next week. The photographer who would have taken it would have failed. Of course, there are exceptions. They concern those few photographs, which after functioning in the applied space for which they were made, then remain. At this point, we must emphasize that nothing, not only in art but in life in general, is so clear. Just as people are not only good or bad, so a photograph cannot be judged absolutely. And after so many years of dealing with this issue, I cannot say that a photograph is for throwing away, except in very few cases.
I wonder if there are any limits, an ethical rule or code for commercial photography, that determine, say, how far it can go, how provocative it can become, which secret chords of man it can touch, with what instincts of his it can play, to sell a product. And of course, I refer to Toscani and the Benetton advertising campaigns, which caused so much noise in recent years.
The only thing that exists is the general code that each person has as a human being. It depends, therefore, on each photographer, on the respect he has for himself, on his resistance to the cheap and the vulgar, to what extent he accepts to suffer the tyranny of the medium he serves. On the other hand, we should not underestimate the world's aesthetic criteria. They say, for example, that after these campaigns, Benetton's sales recorded a drop. Regardless, there is an aesthetic and ethical dimension that can be identified in all our behavior. From the way we dress to the way we behave. For instance, I am immensely bothered by this visual cheapness imposed by so-called lifestyle magazines, which now dominates everywhere. But they have become so much of a regime that, in my opinion, we are close to a turning point that will change this situation. The next magazine that starts removing these elements of sensationalism will be preferred by the people as different. We will reach something calmer, and this will be considered original. I see such an example, say, in computers, which offer the user verbosity with great ease, both in texts and in graphic applications. At some point, even those who use them - designers, writers, journalists - will get tired and will look for something clearer, simpler.
Speaking of which, how much do you think the major technological advancements of recent years have influenced photography? Were these influences positive, or did they ultimately distort its face?
Everything can prove to be a blessing or a curse, depending on whether you yourself have set some boundaries within which you move. Boundaries of aesthetics, ethical behavior, etc. The computer, for example, offers amazing possibilities. It can provide technically perfect photographs, but just as well undermine their truth by creating, literally, a virtual reality. It is also in a position to help the user perceive the difference between the internal photographic time - the one required to capture and form the photograph in your eye - and the artificial time created by machines. Thus, the computer could be a very nice tool for learning and thinking and can become so under certain conditions. I'll add something else: All these technological discoveries could lead us towards a search for essence. To finally realize how necessary the essence of things is to us today, which we have lost. So, there are positive effects from these developments. On the other hand, commercial competition, which develops between various media and arts, when it reaches a climax, might form a new balance between commerciality and quality. Because there has to be such a balance.
Do you think there are significant differences between the photographs published by newspapers today and those in magazines?
Magazines are in a better position because they are not related to the news, which has clearly been stolen by television. Foreign newspapers have understood this, and photography - especially in the English ones - has taken on greater aesthetic significance within the page (larger photos, more carefully selected, etc.). Magazines have a duration and therefore tell a story in a certain way. Their staff gives greater importance to the set of photographs. However, this conversation we've now started prompts me to make comparisons with earlier times. With the golden age of Vogue, for example, when the magazine published works by great fashion photographers. The public either saw them as plastic masterpieces or merely as advertisements for the fashion house's clothes, e.g., Dior. Today, competition has made both entertainment and quality industries. As there is a plethora of images and stimuli, but also a very wide audience, the image needs to be striking. Thus, the striking element comes to the surface. And whatever is on the surface gets exhausted very quickly. For example, the fact that black and white photos have started to appear in prints precisely measures this exhaustion.
Have the differences between black and white and color photography softened or perhaps intensified these days?
The differences were and are large, much larger than the average viewer imagines. In applied photography, which tries to enchant with elements of reality, such as commemorative photographs, classic reporting, etc., color helps the viewer see what he knows. When you try to make a personal photograph, which aims to talk about another reality, that which you create with the elements of reality, this transition, this transfer is done in other ways. The differences between color and black and white are so many, so large that we are essentially talking about two different mediums. They use light differently, volumes differently, surfaces differently. Personally, I use black and white because I am interested in the white and black spaces that have no information, which are lost in color. In color, there must be information, even if just color. Black and white has voids, so it becomes more easily abstract. It is the world of shadow, the tones of white and black that make the difference. But I think it's difficult to define all this precisely. This issue is one of the most difficult chapters of photography, and the more you try to define it, the more it slips away. However, in conclusion, I would say that in the hands of a capable and inspired photographer, all mediums can yield results. And something else we must not forget: black and white photography has a history of one hundred and fifty years, while color only two or three decades. So, it's a matter of time, I think, before photographers who handle color with greater ease begin to emerge. Color can only be used more intelligently than it is today.
What elements do you think dominate internationally in fashion photography?
I get the impression that fashion photography is beginning to have some more personal representatives lately, although still on a superficial level. Some smart designers, especially Italians, are looking for already established photographers—not necessarily fashion photographers—and pay them generously to do a report in their own style for the promotion of their clothes. We're moving away a bit from that classic style of the previous decade, where the Los Angeles-Milano recipe dominated, with beautiful women and Patrick Demarchelier photographing them. That is, glossy photography with beautiful blond-haired women whose hair flutters with the help of a fan. It's characteristic that most fashion photographers bring to the magazines fifty-fifty films from a meeting with the model who moves expertly in all directions, and they capture scenes with a motor drive ensuring clear skin and soft lighting. Now these new photographers, who bring their aesthetics from street photography or the portraits they do, transfer it to fashion. We have, therefore, an attempt for a more discrete aesthetic. But we must not forget again that it's very important for the style of each job to fit, to marry, with each designer. That is, again, you shouldn't say: this is the so-and-so photographer, but this style is very much Armani. And I have to say that especially Armani does a very smart job in this area. The models he chooses, the "grayness" of their general aesthetic, which matches his clothes, is a very correct choice. In the past, in the interwar period for example, things were relatively easier for fashion photography. There wasn't this great spread. It was mainly about haute couture, which was addressed to fewer people. The photographers were more cultured and aesthetically advanced, but they never considered themselves artists. Just as the most famous designers of the time did. In contrast, of course, to what happens today.