How are we perceived,

if we are to be perceived at all?

For the most part we are invisible.

Just some dust

October 18th, 2007

Thank you for bearing with me and my silly mumblings.

It’s been like one of those moments you ask yourself a question abruptly, only seconds later to find it rather foolish. I never believed my images have the power I want them to have, if they have anything at all. The sense of things is so often unclear when you are overwhelmed by their trivialities.

Now I see it’s the same meaningfulness and meaninglessness as in the strange everyday itself. What I want to show in my images is most likely not what they actually show, nor is it what you see.

But there’s no need to stop.

You live wherever you live.
You do whatever work you do.
You talk however you talk.
You eat whatever you eat.
You wear whatever clothes you wear.
You look at whatever images you see.

YOU’RE LIVING HOWEVER YOU CAN.
YOU ARE WHOEVER YOU ARE.

“Identity”…
of a person,
of a thing,
of a place.

“Identity”…
the word itself gives me shivers
It rings of calm, comfort, contentedness.
What is it, identity?
To know where you belong?
To know your self worth?
To know who you are?
How do you recognize identity?
We are creating an image of ourselves.
We are attempting to resemble this image…
Is that what we call identity?
The accord
between the images we have created
of ourselves
and … ourselves?
Just who is that, “ourselves”?

We live in the cities.
The cities live in us…
time passes.
We move from one city to another,
from one country to another.
We change languages.
We change habits.
We change opinions.
We change clothes.
We change everything.
Everything changes. And fast.
Images above all,
have changed faster and faster.
And they have been multiplying at a hellish rate, ever since
the explosion that unleashed the electronic images,
the very images that I’m now replacing photography.

We have learned to trust the photographic image.
Can we trust the electronic image?
With painting everything was simple.
The original was the original,
and each copy was a copy - a forgery.
With photography
and then film
that began to get complicated.
The original was a negative.
Without a print, it did not exist.
Just the opposite,
each copy was the original.
But now with the electronic,
and soon the digital,
there is no more negative and no more positive.
The very notion of the original is obsolete.
Everything is a copy.
All distinctions have become arbitrary.

No wonder the idea of identity
finds itself in such a feeble state.

Identity is out of fashion.

- Wim Wenders, Notebook on Cities and Clothes

3 Comments »

  1. ---

    Comment by lene    @ October 19, 2007 01:32

    不知道为什么,看得心里很沉。

    不是沉重,只是,点点头,觉得,嗯。就是这样。

    前几天看到你发烧生病,本来可以鼓励一下,但作为一个陌生人,我有点,退缩。不管怎样,养好身体吧。there’s no need to stop.我喜欢这句话,请继续。

  2. ---

    Comment by Archifan    @ October 19, 2007 12:57

    who am i :-)
    identity用中文一两个字很难完全表达清楚。

    文斯特面对日渐模糊的真实性,强调摄影师的主观”视角 Einstellung”重要。还说要用文字去拯救图片,与其相对你提及图片作为文字的佐餐,看来两者是不可分割的了。

  3. ---

    Comment by Z    @ October 21, 2007 13:23

    lene:不必覺得是陌生人。事實上,在這裡寫下過一兩句話的大多都是我沒見過面的朋友。:-)

    Archifan:是啊,中文裡早先都沒有這個概念。另外,是前兩天生病的時候想起Wenders電影開頭的這段話,還有另外的一部Lisbon Story,其中對圖像的反思。

Comments RSS TrackBack URI

Leave a comment