 Predogled segmentov knjige / Book segments preview |
Edicija zavoda Hiša fotografije
House of Photography Edition TIMEBOX Bojan Radovič Urednik / Editor: Sebastjan Leban Esej / Essay: Sebastjan Leban, Marina Gržinić Prevod / Translation: Tanja Passoni 22 x 28 cm 160 strani / pages mehka vezava / soft bound Cena / Price: 30 EUR Prodaja: La librairie, 29, Rue des Récollets, Paris; Luminus, Novo mesto |
|
IMITARI – TIMEBOX
Sebastjan Leban Kako bi lahko razdelali realnost sodobne družbe, zaznamovane z globalizacijo in pogojene z neprestanim tehnološkim posodabljanjem? Kakšna bo nova revolucija vidnega in kakšen instrumentarij bo treba razviti, da bomo lahko brali in analizirali vse bolj kompleksne procese njene reprezentacije? Razvoj namreč ne implicira samo tehnološkega napredka družbe, ampak njeno nadgradnjo v vseh segmentih. Kot navaja Beller, film, televizija, video, računalniki in internet predstavljajo deteritorializirane tovarne, v katerih mi kot gledalci ali uporabniki delamo. V ekonomiji vidnega gledati pomeni delati. K temu bistvenemu preobratu je največ prispeval ravno film, ki je s svojim kinematičnim načinom produkcije transformiral dojemanje časa, percipiranje realnosti in fikcije ter spremenil produkcijski proces samega dela. Po Bellerju je imaginativna funkcija danes že del percepcije in ta je popolnoma podrejena pogojem kapitalistične produkcije in reprodukcije. Preko kinematičnega načina produkcije in posledično produkcije prek novih medijev je prišlo do bistvene transformacije (v klasičnem smislu biopolitike države) tudi v relaciji do nadzora in regulacije življenja, kateri je danes pridružena biopolitika kapitala. Foucaultovi paradigmi biopolitike, njeni vzpostavitvi in metodam njenega izvrševanja je potrebno danes dodati Mbembejevo paradigmo nekropolitike – se pravi politiko deregulacije življenja. Če gre pri biopolitiki za regulacijo življenja, je za nekropolitiko značilno, da skozi regulacijo in proizvodnjo smrti deregulira življenje. Na ta način si biopolitika in nekropolitika nista diametralno nasprotni, ampak se, ravno obratno, skozi imperializem kroženja konstantno dopolnjujeta in nadgrajujeta. Danes smo tako priča ključni transformaciji interrelacije med nadzorom in regulacijo življenja in smrti. Z drugimi besedami to pomeni, da nas osnovni predponi bio- in nekro- nagovarjata, da gre pri prvem za nadzor življenja in njegovo produkcijo, pri drugem pa za produkcijo smrti, pri čemer ne smemo pozabiti, da obe paradigmi sočasno vključujeta tako regulacijo smrti kot življenja. Tako denimo biopolitika ne regulira in nadzira samo življenja, ampak prek proizvodnje življenja regulira in proizvaja smrt. Nasprotno nekropolitika, ne proizvaja in nadzira samo smrti, ampak regulira življenje. Njuna ontološka razlika se nahaja ravno v njuni re(de)regulaciji. Nadzor in regulacija tako predstavljata ključna elementa pri izgradnji sodobnega sveta in družbe. Film ni spremenil samo načina kapitalistične (re)produkcije, ampak je tudi bistveno prispeval k mediaciji novih oblik regulacije in kontrole. Postal je sredstvo, preko katerega sistem implementira bionekropolitiko. Pri filmu tako govorimo o materialni praksi, ki poteka na globalnem nivoju, kjer kapital izkorišča vlogo in funkcijo podobe za svojo neomejeno fluktuacijo. Film je historično postal sredstvo za reorganizacijo delavstva in stroj za proizvodnjo vrednosti. Kot navaja Žižek, gre pri filmu za ultimativno perverzno umetnost, ki subjektu ne nudi tistega, kar si želi, ampak mu pove, kaj si mora želeti. Ali povedano drugače, kapital skozi produkcijski sistem podob (v smislu kinematičnega načina produkcije) ustvarja potrebo po želji, kar mu zagotavlja nenehno reprodukcijo. Projekt Imitari – Timebox načenja vprašanje funkcije podobe v relaciji do časa in gibanja, značilne za Deleuzovo paradigmo podoba-gibanje podoba-čas. Skozi analitični aparat fotografije Radovič postavi gledalca v vlogo tistega, ki (de)konstruira posamezni filmski kader. Namen tega ni samo izgraditi kod vizualnega branja, s katerim lahko razdelamo posamezne posnetke, ki tvorijo kader (v realnosti in tudi v fikciji), temveč aktivirati gledalca pri samem dejanju reza, ki ga Radovič izvede v razstavljenih delih. Značilni filmski rez tako postane sredstvo za izgradnjo fotografskega dela. Radovič premesti delovni proces filmskega medija v fotografskega in obratno. Na ta način smo iz stanja gledanja premeščeni v proces konstrukcije fotografije, katerega sestavni element smo mi sami. Kot gledalci smo postavljeni v medprostor, ki ga sestavljata videokamera, nameščena v cameri obscuri, in slika Grand Canyona. Beleženje, ki ga Radovič izbere kot temelj dela Decisive Moment, postane produkt aktivnega kolektivnega performansa. Strategija participatorne umetnosti, katere umetniški produkt je interakcija performerja in gledalcev, je na tem mestu nadgrajena s tehničnim momentom izgradnje fotografskega posnetka. Namreč v trenutku, ko nas kamera snema, se naša podoba v realnem času projicira na prazno galerijsko steno kot neke vrste fantazma ali paralelna realnost, kot reprodukcija produkcije kapitala. Smisel tega ni samo poudariti paralelnost obstoja fikcije in realnosti, ampak analizirati relacijo med podobo, časom in gibanjem ravno prek defragmentacije videoposnetka. Končni produkt je montaža fotografije, ki jo Radovič pridobi na podlagi rezanja posameznih videoposnetkov, nastalih med otvoritvijo razstave. Na ta način nas Radovič aktivno vključi v izgradnjo procesa samega dela. Beleženje kot performativni akt postane fotografija kot artefakt. Pri filmu, kot navaja Deleuze, rez določa posnetek, posnetek pa gibanje, ki se znotraj zaprtega sistema vzpostavlja med elementi ali deli postavitve. Na ta način Radovič fotografski medij uporabi kot sredstvo za analizo filmske naracije in kinematičnega načina produkcije, kar posledično pomeni analizo družbe same in procesov produkcije, skozi katere se ta oblikuje. Po Deleuzu filma ne moremo definirati kot zgolj gibljive slike, ki jim je dodano gibanje, prej gre za intermedijsko podobo, ki ji je gibanje inherentno. Vsak element znotraj kadra ima tako lastno gibanje, ki skupaj z drugimi sestavlja paradigmo podoba-gibanje podoba-čas. Radovičevo preizpraševanje te paradigme prek defragmentacijske sposobnosti fotografskega medija odpira novo branje in razumevanje tako analognega kot digitalnega, v katerem so čas, podoba in gibanje razpeti med realnostjo naše fikcije in fikcijo naše realnosti. Prav ta relacija predstavlja ključ do branja del Frankfurt, Times Square in Skopje. V slednjem Radovič razgradi eno filmsko sekundo na 24 posnetkov. Pri delu gre za obrat Deleuzove paradigme podoba - gibanje, kjer nas Radovič sooči s tistim neopaznim delom, ki tvori posnetek. V tem primeru je to kader, ki je negiben, zamrznjen, statičen. Pri tem dejanju ne moremo govoriti zgolj o seciranju enega kadra in nato njegovem razvrščanju v kolaž ali asemblaž (tudi digitalni), ampak o razgradnji notranjih relacij, ki se znotraj njega vzpostavljajo. Kot gledalci sodobnega sveta razpolagamo s spominom, ki je že nadgrajen z digitalnim načinom produkcije. Mi namreč nismo nedolžni gledalci, ki smo se prvič srečali s fotografijo ali filmom, ampak že imamo filmski in fotografski spomin. To pa pomeni, da smo sposobni razvijati relacije, ki jih ima fotografski posnetek, na popolnoma nove načine. In ravno to je Radovičev namen – prek linearnosti podobe - gibanja nas prisili k uporabi nelinearnosti podobe - časa. Radovičevo preizpraševanje o vlogi in funkciji gledalca, kaj se z njim danes dogaja in kaj je predmet njegovega opazovanja, konstituira tisti aditivni element, ki omogoča nadaljnji razvoj fotografije. Ravno gesta gledanja je ključ do razumevanje gledalčeve funkcije znotraj ekonomije vidnega in kulturne industrije. Gledalec, ki ni zgolj pasivni uporabnik, ampak predvsem potencialni politični subjekt, ki je sposoben razumeti vizualne kode mediacije in produkcije kritičnega mišljenja. Gledalec kot subjekt, kot pripadnik sodobnega proletariata, ki ne dela več v tovarnah za tekočim trakom, ampak znotraj ekonomije vidnega in živi z drugo hitrostjo – kinematično. Na ta način novo polje kapitalistične eksploatacije postane novo polje boja. V obeh primerih je gledalec ključen. Gledati ne pomeni več samo delati, ampak predstavlja tisti emancipativni moment, ki omogoča formacijo polja novih idej in sprememb. Viri: Beller, Jonathan (2006). The Cinematic Mode of Production. New England: Dartmouth College Press Deleuze, Gilles (2009). Cinema 1 The Movement-Image. Minneapolis: Universitiy of Minnesota Press Deleuze, Gilles (2007). Cinema 2 The Time-Image. Minneapolis: Universitiy of Minnesota Press Mbembe, Achille (2003). Necropolitics. http://www.jhfc.duke.edu/icuss/pdfs/Mbembe.pdf |
IMITARI – TIMEBOX
by Sebastjan Leban How are we to break down the reality of contemporary society marked by globalisation and conditioned by continuous technological modernisation? What will be the new revolution of the visible, and what tools are we to develop in order to be able to read and analyse the ever more complex processes of its representation? Development does not only imply the technological progress of society, but also the modernisation of all its segments. As stated by Beller, cinema, television, video, computers and the Internet represent deterritorialized factories in which we, as spectators or users, work. Therefore, in the economy of the visible, looking connotes working. The major contribution to this shift was made by cinema, which, through its cinematic mode of production, transformed the perception of time, reality and fiction, and changed the production process of labour proper. According to Beller, today the imaginative function is already inherent in perception, which is in turn completely subjected to the conditions of capitalist production and reproduction. The cinematic mode of production and consequently production through new media have brought about a crucial transformation (in the classical sense of the biopolitics of the State) in relation to the control and regulation of life as well, which is now joined by the biopolitics of capital. Today, Foucault’s paradigm of biopolitics, its reinstatement and the methods of its implementation must be upgraded by Mbembe’s paradigm of necropolitics, i.e., the politics of the deregulation of life. While biopolitics involves the regulation of life, necropolitics, through regulation and production of death, deregulates life. However, biopolitics and necropolitics are not diametrically opposed, but, on the contrary, constantly mutually complement and upgrade each other through the imperialism of circulation. Therefore, today we are faced with a crucial transformation of the interrelation between the control and regulation of life and death. In other words, the prefixes bio and necro point to the control of life and its reproduction and the production of death, respectively, although we should not forget that both paradigms include the regulation of death and life at one and the same time. As a result, biopolitics not only regulates and controls life, but, through the production of life, regulates and produces death as well. While necropolitics, in addition to regulating and controlling death, regulates life. Their ontological difference resides precisely in their (re)(de)regulation. Control and regulation thus represent the fundamental elements in the construction of the contemporary world and society. Cinema has not only altered the mode of capitalistic (re)production, but has also contributed significantly to the mediation of new forms of regulation and control. It has become a means of the system to implement bionecropolitics. Cinema involves a material practice taking place at the global level, where capital has taken advantage of the role and function of the image for its unlimited fluctuation. Historically, cinema has thus become a means for the reorganisation of labour and a machine for the production of value. As stated by Žižek, cinema is the ultimate pervert art that doesn’t give you what you desire, but tells you how to desire. Or to rephrase, capital, through the system of production of images (in the sense of the cinematic mode of production), creates the need to desire, which secures capital’s perpetual reproduction. The project Imitari – Timebox addresses the question of the function of image in relation to time and movement characteristic of Deleuze’s paradigm of movement-image time-image. Through the analytical apparatus of photography, Radovič places the spectator in the role of the one who (de)constructs each set. The point is not only to build a code for a visual interpretation that allows us to analyse singular shots making up the set (both in reality and fiction), but to activate the spectator in the very act of cutting performed by Radovič himself in the exhibited works. The characteristic film cutting thus becomes a medium for the construction of the photographic work. Radovič transforms the process of the film medium into the photographic medium and vice versa. We are thus displaced from the state of watching into the process of photograph construction, with ourselves forming a constitutive part. As spectators, we are placed in an in-between space consisting of a camera placed within the camera obscura and of the painting of Grand Canyon. The act of recording chosen by Radovič as a basis for his work Decisive Moment becomes the result of an active collective performance. The strategy of participatory art, the artistic result of which is the interaction between the performer and spectators, is in this case enhanced by the technical moment of the construction of a photographic snapshot. In the very moment that we are being recorded by the camera, the real time image of us is projected onto an empty gallery wall as a phantasm or parallel reality, as a reproduction of capital production. The purpose is not only to emphasize the parallelism of existence of fiction and reality, but also to analyze the relation between image, time and movement precisely through the defragmentation of a video recording. The final result is the montage of the photograph that Radovič obtains by way of cutting individual video clips from the exhibition opening, making us, the spectators, take on an active role in the construction of the work as such. Recording as a performative act becomes a photograph as an artefact. As argued by Deleuze, cutting is the determination of the shot, and the shot, the determination of the movement which is established in the closed system between elements or parts of the set. In such a way, Radovič uses photography as the medium for the analysis of film narration and the cinematic mode of production, dissecting at one and the same time society and the processes of production through which this last is being shaped. According to Deleuze, film cannot be defined as moving pictures to which movement is added, but rather as an intermediate image to which movement is inherent. Every single element within the set is endowed with its own movement, and, when put together, these elements constitute the paradigm movement-image time-image. Radovič’s questioning of this very paradigm through the capacity of defragmentation of the photographic medium opens up new ways of interpreting and understanding the analogue and the digital where time, image and movement are caught between the reality of our fiction and the fiction of our reality. This very relation represents the key to the interpretation of the work Frankfurt, Times Square and Skopje. In this last, Radovič breaks down one second of film into 24 frames. We are thus presented with a shift of Deleuze’s paradigm movement-image, while being confronted at the same time with that invisible part that constitutes a single shot. In this case, that part is the sequence which is motionless, frozen, static. However, what is involved is not only the cutting of a sequence and its arrangement into a collage or assemblage (not even a digital one), but also the breaking down of its internal relations. As spectators of the contemporary world, we possess a memory to which the digital mode of production is inherent. Therefore, we are not innocent spectators coming upon photography or film for the first time, but already have a filmic and photographic memory, meaning that we are capable of developing completely new relations within a photographic shot. This is precisely Radovič’s purpose: to force us through the linearity of movement-image to use the nonlinearity of the time-image. Radovič’s questioning of the role and function of the spectator, what is going on with him/her and what is the object of his/her contemplation, constitutes the additive element, which allows for the further development of photography. The act of watching is the key to the understanding of the spectator’s function within the economy of the visible and cultural industry: The spectator who is not merely a passive user but above all a potential political subject able to interpret the visual codes of mediation and to produce critical thinking. The spectator as a subject, as a member of the contemporary proletariat who is not working in a factory behind a conveyor belt, but is operative within the economy of the visible, living with a different speed – the cinematic one. As a result, the new field of capitalist exploitation becomes a new field of struggle. In both cases, however, the spectator is of key importance, since watching involves not only working, but also contains the emancipative moment that enables the formation of new ideas and brings about changes. References: Beller, Jonathan (2006). The Cinematic Mode of Production. New England: Dartmouth College Press Deleuze, Gilles (2009). Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Deleuze, Gilles (2007). Cinema 2: The Time-Image. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Mbembe, Achille (2003). Necropolitics. http://www.jhfc.duke.edu/icuss/pdfs/Mbembe.pdf |
|
IKONA
Marina Gržinić (2008) Bojan Radovič je v svoji novi seriji fotografij uporabil simbol (rdeče) peterokrake zvezde. Pentagram namreč – vsaj za tiste, ki izhajamo iz socializma – na splošno pomeni simbol komunizma in socializma. Avtor je ponovno uporabil zvezdo kot simbol, ki je od padca berlinskega zidu in z njim komunizma v Evropi vse bolj izpraznjen svoje »prvotne« komunistično revolucionarne vsebine. Danes zvezda kroži po svetu kot sestavni del blagovnih znamk, kontekstov itd. Radovič opozarja na te mnogovrstne pomene, ki jih zvezda prevzema v kapitalističnem procesu trženja blagovnih znamk; ta (rdeči) zvezdi počasi in vztrajno jemlje njeno zgodovinsko in revolucionarno moč. Fotografije ne le beležijo, kar se z zvezdo stvarno dogaja, pač pa prek njih avtor ustvarja pogoje, ki kažejo ujetost simbola v proces, ki zvezdo polni z vsebino lahkotnega potrošniškega kapitalističnega sveta in jo izpraznjuje vsebine preteklega socializma.Radoviča zanima vmesni pomen, ki ga proizvajata podoba zvezde in njena fotografija. Ta »vmesnost« pa je prostor interpretacije, ki ustvarja nove možnosti razmišljanja o podobi zvezde in fotografije nasploh ter pogleda nanju. Preidimo na naslov: Ikona. Ikona preusmerja pomen peterokrake zvezde iz simbola v znak. Znak nas običajno preusmerja na nekaj drugega, k nekemu drugemu pomenu; znak je sestavljen iz kombinacije označevalca in označenca. Tej kombinaciji nekateri prištevajo tudi referent, ki je konkretni objekt, »predmet«, ki ga nekateri zamenjujejo z označencem; včasih označenca nadomeščajo z referentom. Označevalec je kazalec, beseda, zvočna podoba, označenec pa koncept, pomen, »predmet«, ki ga označevalec določa; za označenca ne drži, da je to stvarni predmet, dovolj je, da je to nekaj, na kar se označevalec nanaša. Oba namreč, označevalec in označenec, sta glavna elementa semiotike. V postmoderni teoriji se vse večji pomen pripisuje označevalcu in vse manjšega označencu, medtem ko referent, to je konkretni predmet v realnosti, vse bolj izgublja svojo vlogo. Charles Sanders Peirce, ameriški filozof, ki se je ukvarjal s semiotiko in je začetnik pragmatizma, je leta 1931 izjavil, da ikonski znak označuje neki predmet »v glavnem zaradi podobnosti« z njim. Pierce je ta modus izvorno označil s terminom »enakost« in zatrdil, da je »vsaka slika (ne glede na to, kako konvencionalno je posneta)« ikonska. Ikone imajo lastnosti, podobne lastnostim predmetov, »spominjajo« na predmete, ki jih označujejo, zato »v človeku vzbujajo podobne občutke« kot označeni predmet.Peirce je razliko med ikono in znakom označil kot indeks. Indeks namreč pomeni, da označevalec ni poljubno, pač pa neposredno, skoraj fizično ali kavzalno povezan z označencem (kakor med drugim naravna znamenja, denimo povezava med dimom in ognjem). Pri ikonah pa je prav obratno; označevalec je podoben označencu oziroma ga posnema prek sistema podobnosti. Z vztrajanjem na peterokraki zvezdi kot ikoni Radovič zatrjuje, da je zvezda na njegovih fotografijah le podobna (rdeči) zvezdi, torej na njo le spominja. Velja poudariti, da popolne ikone ne obstajajo, saj za določanjem pomena znakov vselej stoji kulturna konvencija (družbeno in zgodovinsko določeni pomenski prostori), ki ne nazadnje definira naše razmerje do ikon. Pomenska veriga, ki se vzpostavi med označevalcem in označencem, je potemtakem časovno, zgodovinsko in družbeno določena. Bojan Radovič zasleduje popolnoma drugačne pomene zvezdastega znaka, ki jih išče na še tako nemogočih mestih. To je v njegovih fotografijah toliko bolj razvidno iz samega formata fotografij in iz posnetkov zvezde, ki je v objektiv ujeta prek vrste formalnih fotografskih prijemov. V enem delu serije je ta postavljena v središče; celotni prostor fotografije je osredotočen na središčno lego zvezde, kateri je tudi fotografija sama v celoti podrejena. V drugem delu serije pa se zvrstijo posnetki, ki prikazujejo nenadno in nepričakovano vseprisotnost zvezde v vsakodnevni realnosti. Radovičeve fotografije torej razkrivajo, da zvezda danes »pomeni« vse drugo kot to, kar v resnici je, in da je pravzaprav sestavni del celotnega znakovnega sistema. Avtor udomačenost pomena izloči iz (rdeče) zvezde in ga sopostavi drugim pomenom. S tem pokaže, da ga zanima semiotika sodobne fotografije; torej zanima ga, kako znotraj medija fotografije analizirati in razmišljati o pomenu in sporočilnosti znakov in simbolov v času povsem globaliziranega sveta, v katerem kroženje znakov in simbolov sega skoraj do točke IMPERIALIZMA kroženja. Radovič prav tako vztraja pri dejstvu, da semiotika ni samo neka zamisel, pač pa da »zvezda« resnično sobiva z nami. Zvezdo zasleduje v vsakodnevnem življenju, zato je vsaka od fotografij opremljena z naslovom, ki razkriva, kje je bila fotografija posneta. To bi bilo mogoče navsezadnje z digitalno tehnologijo tudi umetno skonstruirati, vendar za Radoviča je pomembno, da zvezde stvarno obstajajo; brez njihovega obstoja namreč tudi fotografije ne bi bilo. S tem se približuje definiciji fotografije, kot jo je opredelil Roland Barthes v svoji knjigi Camera Lucida (v originalu izšla leta 1980). Zvezda ni le pojem, ki nekaj označuje, ni zgolj zamisel, pač pa je stvarno navzoča v svetu, ki nas obdaja. Rosalind Kraus se je vprašala, kaj se zgodi s statusom fotografije, kadar »stvari« (ki naj bi jih fotografija zabeležila) niso več potrebne, kadar se »fotorealistična« simulacija resničnosti nekomu zdi bolj »resnična« (kot v holivudskih svetovih, opremljenih s posebnimi efekti) od indeksikalnih podob, ker da zbuja večji občutek njihove »neposrednosti«. Ali obstaja še kakšen simbol, ki bi ga lahko Radovič spremljal ali ga fotografiral? Radovič je otrok socializma in danes – v času neoliberalnega globalnega kapitalizma – zelo spoštovan fotografski producent in avtor. Morda mu prav ta ujetost med dvema zgodovinskima obdobjema omogoča, da zasleduje svoje sanje ali morda moro o (rdeči) zvezdi. V članku iz leta 2001 »The Footprint and the Readymade – Photography as Art« je Sven Lutticken podal svoje mnenje o fotografijah Walkerja Evansa. Zapisal je, da je pri Evansu fotografija v tesni povezavi z ready madeom, ki je v njej fotografiran. Podobno lahko rečemo tudi za to fotografsko serijo avtorja Bojana Radoviča. Viri: Daniel Chandler, Semiotics for Beginners, 2006. Prevedla Tanja Passoni. |
THE ICON
by Marina Gržinić (2008) The symbol used in this new series of photographs by Bojan Radovič is the five-pointed (red) star, a pentagram that, at least for those of us coming from ex-socialism, is a symbol of communism and socialism in general. Radovič reused it as a symbol, which after the fall of the Berlin wall and with it the fall of communism in Europe, is more and more emptied of its “original” communist revolutionary meaning. Today, as time passes, the star simply floats around countries, brands, contexts etc. Radovič points to this shifting of the meaning of the star produced by the capitalist process of branding, which slowly and steadily removes from the (red) star its historical and revolutionary power. His photographs are more than just keeping track, photographing what is actually happening with the star. He constructs a condition showing a symbol that is caught in the process of being refilled with the easy consumerist world of capitalism and emptied of its past socialism. Radovič is concerned with this in-between meaning produced by the image of the star and its photograph. This in-between is an interpretative space that allows for new ways of thinking and seeing the image of the star as well as photography. Let’s move now toward the title. “The Icon” shifts the symbol of the five-pointed star towards a sign. The sign usually points to something else; it consists of the matched pair of signifier and signified. Some also add to this pair the referent, which is a concrete object and is exchanged with the signified, i.e. it is sometimes seen in its place. The signifier is the pointing finger, the word, the sound-image. The signified is the concept, the meaning, the “thing” indicated by the signifier. It needs not be a “real object” but it is that to which the signifier refers. The signifier and signified form a core element of semiotics. Post-modern theory lays more and more emphasis on the signifier and less on the signified, while the referent, i.e. the concrete object in the real world, increasingly almost altogether disappears. Charles Sanders Peirce, an American philosopher, who was involved in semiotics and is the founder of pragmatism, declared in 1931 that an iconic sign represents its object “mainly by its similarity.” Indeed, he originally termed such modes, “likenesses” and declared that “every picture (however conventional its method)” is iconic. Icons have qualities that “resemble” those of the objects they represent, and the icon they “excite analogous sensations in the mind.” Peirce established the difference between the icon and the sign as index. Index is a mode in which the signifier is not arbitrarily but directly connected almost physically or causally to the signified (as is the case with natural signs, for example smoke is connected with fire). On the contrary, in the iconic mode, the signifier is perceived as resembling or imitating the signified through a system of similarities. Insisting on the iconic moment of the five pointed star, Radovič argues that the star in his photographs just resembles and imitates the (red) star. It is important to state that pure icons do not exist, as there is always a cultural convention (socially and historically defined spaces of meanings) involved in all ways of dealing with the meaning of signs. This convention determines the way we relate to the icon in the last instance. The chain of meaning that is established between signifier and signified is temporally, historically and socially determined. Bojan Radovič tries to find a very different set of meanings of the star as a sign. He is searching for it in almost impossible places. This is underlined by the framing, shooting, capturing in his photographs of the star through a variety of formal photographic solutions. One part of the series exposes the centrality of it; the whole space of the photograph revolves around the star’s central position. The star is placed centre stage and the photograph is completely subordinated to this centrality. The other part of the series is a follow-up of snapshots that capture the star as being suddenly and spontaneously overwhelmingly present in everyday reality. Radovič’s photographs therefore interpret the star as nowadays “signifying” things other than itself, as being part of the whole system of signs. He extracts the familiarity of the meaning of the (red) star and transposes it toward many other meanings. This transposition shows that Radovič is concerned with the question of the contemporary semiotic field of photography. The semiotic here is the interest within the medium of photography to analyse and think about the signification and communication of signs and symbols in the situation of a completely globalized world where the circulation of signs and symbols reaches the point of almost an IMPERIALISM of circulation. Radovič also insists that this semiotics is not just a concept in the mind, but that the “star” cohabits with us. He searches for the star in everyday reality and this is why each of his photographs bears the subtitle where it was found. He could just fake it, using digital possibilities of photography, but he insists on the fact that these stars exist materially; without their existence, photography would not exist either. With this, he is coming near the condition that Roland Barthes in his book Camera Lucida (originally published in 1980) considered the definition of photography. The star is not just a notion of a thing, a concept in the mind, but a material imprint in the world that surrounds us. Rosalind Kraus asked what is the status of photography when “things” are no longer necessary, when the “photorealistic” simulation of reality (as in Hollywood special effects) is considered by some to be more “real” than indexical images because it gives a greater sense of “immediacy”? Could there be any other symbol to follow or shoot? Radovič was a child of socialism and today in the time of neoliberal global capitalism he is a highly respected photographic producer and author. Maybe this life caught between two historical periods grants him the authorization to follow his dream or maybe the nightmare of the (red) star. In his article from 2001 “The Footprint and the Readymade – Photography as Art,” Sven Lutticken makes a comment on Walker Evans’ photography stating that in Evans’ work the photography and the readymade appear closely related. Something similar could also be said about this new photographic series by Bojan Radovič. References: Daniel Chandler, Semiotics for Beginners, 2006. |
