Mr. Rivelli, looking at the photos of the Photographic Circle exhibited in Thessaloniki and set to be exhibited in Athens in October, I can't help but remember the objections raised against the style of photography adopted by the Circle, which is largely due to your teaching, for example, I see that all the photos here are black and white.
I never excluded a work if it was interesting in color. And some from the Circle do work in color. On the other hand, I do not wrong those who work in black and white, among them myself, because I feel that photography is more about the Logic of Shadows rather than the Logic of Colors. It is a totally personal view that I do not expect everyone to accept. But as color samples around us multiply, the more I feel the charm and attraction of an art expressed through shadow.
I also see that your photos -about 90%- are what we call direct captures, meaning they have no additional interventions. Is this a conscious approach?
In the Circle, we continuously try to identify the boundaries -which we will never reach- of photographic language. This does not mean that if someone uses photography to create a visual artwork, they cannot do so successfully. But for photography to break its boundaries, it is necessary to know them. For me, the limits of photography are defined by capture. The betrayal of capture starts again from capture. When we say capture, we mean what a machine with a lens can do. Otherwise, I see no reason for anyone to use it. The final result, of course, will not be the capture. Here, the capture will be the means.
Extending your words, should I assume that you also reject the works of conceptual art?
If a photograph falls under what we broadly call conceptual or ideational art, that's a big issue because it presupposes the interpretation of what we mean by conceptual art. If by this term we mean that there is an idea about photography as a medium, then every photograph is conceptual. Every photographer, when creating a photo, tries simultaneously to give their view on Photography with a capital P. If by conceptual we mean the illustration of a concept -without exceeding the limits of illustration- then I am opposed. Because an illustration -without another element- can never be considered art. In the illustration of whatever concepts I have seen, the photographic form and content remain divided, almost randomly coexisting, while one should spring from the other and lead to an indivisible whole.
From this, should I conclude that you also exclude the message within a photograph if it wants to be part of artistic photographs?
I exclude the message in every form of art, considering it a very poor offering for art to be consumed in advertising some idea outside of it. Art itself is the message to me.
Let's change the subject, Mr. Rivelli. You've been teaching thousands of students for 14 years, you've even published a pamphlet on teaching. Could you summarize in a few sentences what a photography teacher must do to be good?
In all arts, not just in photography, the teacher has to talk about their own work and convey to their students the passion and love they have for the medium themselves. To identify what they have inside them and to exploit it. Even if the student disagrees with the teacher, what matters is the level of interest, creativity, and imagination that must find an outlet. The teacher must constantly remember that teaching is akin to acting and that they must constantly win over their listeners. They must have knowledge but also concern for what they do. And believe in it. And they must be in continuous contact with the photographic process, whether they are a great photographer or not. This is one of the reasons I continue to photograph constantly. I am interested in feeding my teaching with this serious game called photography.
To all those you've taught, students, undergraduates, individuals, was the lesson the same?
The lesson was more or less the same. I start with technique, but it never interests me by itself. The knowledge of the technique is required precisely so that the technique can disappear behind the work. When we create, the technique should not be a problem, and when a viewer sees the work, it should not be of interest to them. A good photograph must bear the mark of the sculptural presence of time, and that is the only thing that should concern the viewer.
Finally, Mr. Rivelli, could you define photography in one sentence?
I will use a phrase by Garry Winogrand because I have not found a better one and because it encompasses the four basic elements of photography. Photography is the illusion of an exact description of space and time.