“The content of our lives must align with our dreams," believes Platon Rivellis, and he has followed this approach both in theory and in practice for years.
Ever since he abandoned law to focus his lens on bustling street scenes filled with movement and sound, as well as on silent landscapes, captivated by the charm of black and white.
The founder of the "Photographic Circle" - a nursery for new photographers, but also an artistic haunt - plans to expand his activities to Syros.
Last year, he published "Semicolon," gathering in one volume representative photographs of his career, while this year he releases a volume of "Texts on Photography."
Was it difficult to leave the security of law behind?
Very easy! When you no longer feel that your life is beautiful, then the decision presents itself to you. After all, you cannot be a lawyer in the morning and a creator in the afternoon.
Looking at the album, we see that the first period of your work in photography was more human-centered.
The human aspect interests me even when I photograph ruins - the human presence always hides somewhere. However, in my early works, I had not managed to formulate a personal stance. Over the years, I found that a colder, more detached abstraction suited me better. Now, if I return to people, I will do it with greater maturity.
Yet, you insist on black and white photography.
I don't snub color. When I see a black and white photograph, I don't feel the absence of colors. If I see a portrait of a person, I see a person; it doesn't need to have blue eyes to look at me. Black and white is part of reality, whereas color more easily escapes the weight of truth.
Some might argue, "life is colorful."
Yet, black and white imagery has its place even in something as commercial as cinema. Wim Wenders, Woody Allen have made black and white films. I believe that photography, like all arts, should counterpose reality, not replicate it.
Do you think advertising has significantly influenced photography?
Not just photography, but also cinema, television, and the way people think. The speed, the superficial impressionism is evident everywhere. And while we used to agree that advertising is different from art, today they are considered the same. But then, art would be all around us every day.
Among the barrage of images, how can we distinguish the truly beautiful ones?
Beauty changes with each era. I'm interested in art creating thought, emotion, tensions even if it doesn't show beauty according to some standard rules.
You've written that young photographers try at all costs to innovate.
And this again has its roots in advertising because they feel they need something new to exist. If we accepted that nothing new exists, it would give us such freedom that perhaps something new would indeed emerge.
What advice do you give to your students?
First and foremost, to have a fulfilling life. To educate themselves. I don't care if they have talent. I can transmit my enthusiasm for photography to them and teach them art history. You can't be an artist outside of history, and it's dangerous for your influences to be only photographic, because they become direct and straightforward, whereas combined with other arts they become more complex. And above all, to take photos, no matter if they are good or bad.
And talent?
When it exists, the work is great, but I don't think it's right to start from there. Because someone can be overwhelmed by their talent, and someone else who thinks they have none might give up on photography. We have significant works from people without great talent.
Are you interested in photojournalism?
Applied photography, even advertising, interests me. But photojournalism has the ratio of a good journalistic text which we should not compare with a literary text.
From your portraits, the so-called "famous" faces are missing.
I'm not interested if the person I photograph is well-known; I see them as a person, not as a celebrity. Moreover, it would be presumptuous and a failure to render someone's public image, to photograph them, for example, as an actor or rock star. I'm not interested in the myth, but in the anti-myth.
When artists want to appear younger, more beautiful in photographs, how much is the photographer’s freedom limited?
When you do a photoshoot with a commercial aspect, such as fashion and advertising, there are rules. The artist's freedom is limited, but this can be a motivation for a better photograph. However, the most unpleasant thing is not when an actor says "make me beautiful," but when they say "make me look like a TV actor." The final purpose alters the result, not the limitation of freedom, which always existed.