| |
|
Dissolution Series 2009 (platinum)
THE DISAPPEARING MARSHES OF HACKNEY
“Memory is, therefore, neither Perception nor Conception, but a state or affection of one of these, conditioned by lapse of time.” Aristotle
I am interested in how photography informs memory, history, and reminiscence, and these images attempt to explore the relationship between these factors. How when used in certain combinations, some images depict what seem to be new other worlds that do not exist anywhere except within the photographic image, forming new, imagined, internal places from the crystals or pixels that make up the photographic image. A world of myth and melancholy.
Memory is fragile and infinitely corruptible and these pictures, by the nature of their subjectivity, allow these places to be reinvented and remembered in different ways. This is dependent not only of the re-imaginings of the photographer, but also on the status of the viewer and their relationship with the depicted places. Photography is the perfect tool to exploit memories fragility and deconstruct it into its component parts then rebuild it in the photographers preferred state. Once rebuilt, it is difficult for memory to return to its former structures after its fine tapestries have been unpicked.
The photographic image also possesses the power to validate and reinforce personal memories and even to arbitrate in shared memory. It also has an ability to appropriate history when personal memory loses its currency due to issues of time and remembrance when dealing with factual events. Although it is ultimately more suspect in its depiction of events as it’s point of view is more singular, the photograph has a high credibility as evidence of historical fact, allowing everything shown as a photographic image to be thought of, if not actual, then at very least highly plausible. Even when the images have been manipulated or taken out of their original context the default setting of the photograph to the viewer is one of objectivity. This ultimately leads to conflict between memory and photography with the latter most likely to win, causing the lines of memory to be bent in order to accommodate photographic facts. This is partly due to the fact that memories tends to be either personal, which are, by their very nature, subjective or shared, which is remembrance by consensus and therefore have a sheen of vagueness about them either of which can be deemed unreliable when compared to a photographs supposed certainty of objectiveness.
These photographs ultimately depict not a real world in any sense, but a place between there and a supposed world of photographic imaginations.
|
|
|