MarvsReflections

El Salón de 1859 vive (literariamente hablando) como un ensayo, una texto que coloca una forma muy personal de ver las cosas pero que también usa hechos históricos e información factual para proponer un caso, para comprenderlo es indispensable entender el contexto histórico y social en el cual nace este documento y la persona que lo escribió.  Solo dos años antes Baudelaire publica las Flores del mal, un poemario que causa controversia y es censurado por Luis Napoleón III, por lo que es factible deducir que para 1859 Baudelaire se encontraba en una posición que tendía contra la burguesía y el capitalismo industrial que comenzaba a expandirse en París. Baudelaire inserta en este texto la incomodidad que le provoca la democratización de diferentes medios como la literatura por la imprenta y la pintura por la fotografía, el capitalismo y las grandes ciudades traían una idea que no podía soportar: La idea del anonimato.

“Algún escritor demócrata ha debido encontrar el medio barato de difundir entre el público el gusto por la historia… La industria al interrumpir en el arte se convierte en la más mortal enemiga”

En su libro el pintor de la vida moderna, Baudelaire nos da una de las primeras impresiones de la modernidad, también toca el tema de la belleza y como esta se ve afectada por los cambios políticos, sociales y morales de una sociedad. Sin embargo él argumenta que la belleza es un sistema de dos partes, una de ellas siendo un elemento relativo y circunstancial, pero el otro siendo un elemento mucho más eterno, para él la belleza está conectada a lo natural y la vida que uno lleva, podemos entonces decir que para Baudelaire la vida es arte. Esto lo vemos reflejado en sus poemas, a diferencia de los filósofos como Nietzsche o Hobbs quienes escriben utilizando métodos y estructuras que podemos enmarcar como filosóficos, Baudelaire toca temas metafísico como la existencia y libertad de una forma más “bella” o más poética, un ejemplo es su poema “El Albatros” donde Baudelaire habla de un ave que vuela libre pero cae a un barco (la modernidad) para luego ser maltratada por los marineros. Para Baudelaire la fotografía representó la entrada de la modernidad, del capitalismo, de la explotación del hombre por el hombre al mundo del arte, él entendió la literatura como la única forma de reaccionar al cambio, un cambio que podía acarrear el fin de la pintura y otras artes como el las conocía.

“Pero si se le permitimos (a la fotografía) invadir el terreno de lo impalpable y lo imaginario, en particular aquel que sólo vale por que el hombre le añada su alma, entonces ¡ay de nosotros!”

Andrew Fisher en su ensayo “The Photographic Scale” o la escala fotográfica habla sobre el proceso de “escalar una fotografía”, lo describe como un fenómeno de significado ontológico que se presenta de una manera ubicua, abigarrada y compuesta, en otras palabras, algo que existe como parte la fotografía y que no puede ser separado de ella. En un esfuerzo por crear una estructura que nos permita entender qué sucede al momento de leer una imagen, Fisher señala que diferentes escalas se “unen” para crear una proyección personal de una realidad externa. De la misma manera Timothy Corrigan en su publicación “The Essay Film” propone el término “Essaystic” como un tipo de encuentro entre lo personal y el dominio público, Corrigan intenta crear marcos de pensamiento que nos permitan examinar películas con características fuera de las clasificaciones más generales, en ambos casos “The Photographic Scale” y “The Essay Film” son textos que nace de la necesidad de entender una nueva forma de expresión artística que no se basa en el medio (fotografía o cine) pero en la manera en que el medio se está usando.

Las ideas de Andrew Fisher y de Timothy Corrigan son de mucha ayuda al momento de encontrarse con la obra del fotógrafo estadounidense Philip Lorca DiCorcia, una de las cosas que me parecen importantes entender sobre DiCorcia son sus maestros, especialmente Tod Papageorge quien era encargado del departamento académico donde DiCorcia estaba estudiando en el instituto de artes de Boston, uno de los trabajos de Papageorge es una serie en el interior de “Studio 54” una discoteca muy exclusiva en Nueva York de los 70’s, Papageorge realizó estas fotos con una cámara de formato medio, componiendo cuidadosamente cada fotografias, el resultado fueron imágenes de la realidad creada por el club para sus clientes, una realidad que les permite ser quienes ellos quieran. El tipo de trabajo y las ideas de Papageorge se ven después influenciado sutilmente el trabajo de DiCorcia y su discurso fotográfico, en una entrevista en el museo de arte The Hepworth Wakefield en 2014 DiCorcia explica lo siguiente refiriéndose a su trabajo fotográfico en general: “La personas representan cosas para mi, nada personal, cada persona pertenece a un arquetipo que manipulo con el fin de que luzcan más como el arquetipo en el que yo estoy pensando, sin embargo la mayoría del tiempo es solo apariencia, ellos se ven de una forma pero no lo son”

En su serie fotográfica “The Hustlers” Philip Lorca DiCorcia toma jovenes sexo servidores de las calles de los Ángeles y los coloca en mundos construidos, utilizando el concepto propuesto por Corrigan en “The essay film” las fotografías en “The Hustlers” obtienen su poder de la habilidad de cuestionar las suposiciones que tenemos sobre el medio fotográfico, con una lectura que se preocupa más por las intersecciones que pueden o no tener con ideas como la narrativa, el dramatismo de lo teatrico o incluso la poesía, dejando claro que estas imágenes están por encima de los problemas de fidelidad con los que se encuentra cualquier otra adaptación. Como un ensayo literario “The Hustlers” vive entre lo personal y el dominio público, describiendo una experiencia, el reflejo de un ser que constantemente prueba sus límites y se redefine a través de sus vivencias. Junto con otros elementos como la composición y el título de la imagen, DiCorcia se asegura de agregar capas de lectura que jueguen con las “escalas” que usamos para interpretarlas, en este caso el proceso ontológico y variado que promopen Andrew Fisher nos puede ayudar a examinar la manera en estas fotografías se hacen leer, Fisher señala que al momento de leer una imagen creamos “escalas” con las cuales interpretamos sus elementos, estas escalas pueden enfocarse en diferentes temas como ¿Quien tomó la foto? o ¿A que me recuerda la foto? incluyendo escalas que no necesariamente son invocadas por nosotros conscientemente pero siguen agregando a la experiencia, como geografía, raza, color, incluso la época en que vemos la fotografía o la época en la que se creó, todo esto agregando a lo que Fisher llama la espacio-temporalidad de la fotografía, DiCorcia tiene un punto de vista que difiere de la idea romántica de la fotografía y que se alinea más con los conceptos propuestos por Andrew Fisher, en “The Hustlers” logra transmitir estas ideas de una forma gráfica magistral, muchos han señalado las características cinemáticas que tiene su trabajo, sin embargo, lo implicado por lo cinemático es el grado de ilusión que marca la fotografía, el fotógrafo se muestra especialmente hábil para transmitir una idea, tomando situaciones mundanas y colocándolas dentro del contexto de una obra de arte.

The capital city is a rather interesting place to visit, it comes across as an old 90′s city from the east coast of the US, a mix of cultures and history that is yet to understand how all its elements play together

From the park to the university it presents an atmosphere of stillness that allows us to move around and through, the city itselfs lives because of the people and most of the people exist in this location because of the city, is a interesting duality that gives this place its flavor.

Because of the different faces the city has, I find it satisfactory to go around and shoot, trying to claim a part of its reality form myself and now for you, if you ever come to Guatemala don't forget to visit the city.

I personally love Lake Atitlán, ever since I started as an assisten back in 2016 I couldn’t help but wander how in the world such beautifoul place came to be…

So if you are planning on coming to Guatemala you can’t miss some of the things Lake Atitlán has to offer, for stars the main form of transportation is by boat!

Don’t worry they are very safe and the lake is very calm most of the year, I have had to get back to my hotel at 10pm after a wedding and I rather do it by boat because is faster and safer.

There are a lot of activities on the lake, you can swim, or use a kayak to move around, if you are up for a party you can always go to “San Pedro” where all the fun happens!

Santa María holds most of the local artist and local guides can get you anywhere you want around the lake, they now where the knowledge or the art or the fun is.

You can even parachute yourself from one of the mountains that surround the lake.

When it comes to places to say, I personally recommend “La Zanahoria Chic” a little hotel own by a family that also has a bakery! So you get free coffe and on top of that you can go to the loby and get some cake..

From the hotel to the bay is a 3 minutes walk, and the view is just beautiful..

Lake Atitlán is only one of the many places Guatemala has to offer, we are a country of tradition, a pluricultural and multilingual part of the world and we are proud of it..

There are few things you might take as intrinsically unchangeable on this world, one of those is human stupidity and the other one can be “change” or a least the concept related to such word.

I’m from a little country named Guatemala a piece of land south to Mexico, about 2 hours flight from Texas, this little country has been for most of its history nothing but a pseudo-democracy resembling more a modern feudal state than a republic, however the last century big changes (there’s the word again!) have transformed Guatemala into what some people called “a young democracy”.

Well as with manny ideas it is imperative to understand the social and historical context that gave birth to such labels, so in order to understand Guatemala and more importantly, why we matter more than ever before, we have dive into Guatemala’s history and it's now very close and bound relationship with the United States of America.

A bit of global history...

It all begins back in 1944, second war world has just finished, Hitler has been defeated and Europe is looking ahead to a feature of prosperity and unity, up until now the USA has been in the same side with Russia, however the end of the war leaves the world with two massive super powers.

The USA on the west with capitalism as the economic model, judeo-christian beliefs as moral templates and their own version of Greek political machinery called republic as its structure of power. The USSR on the east with communism, a one-party nation and socialism wrapping it all up, ideas that people somehow believe were totally opposite to western values.

This landscape of power lead to a “cold war” named like that because it wasn’t a war of direct military conflicts between the USSR and the USA but instead it was a war based on ideology, with both side creating propaganda to make their people believe those who did not live like them were the enemy and needed to be eradicated before they eradicate you!

This idea was aggravated by the fact that now both nations have the destruction power of the nuclear bomb, a new weapon of mass destruction capable of erasing human life from this earth, as you might expect the stakes were high, they were threats made, missile placed in close location to the enemy like Cuba or Ukraine, none of the parties was willing to lose and used every allie they could get to gain power and push the enemy further away from their motherland.

On this side of the globe, the USA declared war against communism and started programs of all kind to make sure there were no communist influence inside the motherland or anywhere close to it, so, guess where Guatemala landed on that plan? Yep, we weren’t really there, I mean, Guatemala was a bit more than a farm for the USA you might even say we were not consider humans back then, it is inevitable to say that we were just another “banana nation” for the white upper class of the big super countries.

About Guatemala on the 1940’s

Guatemala on the the 20th century was a nation owned by a big company that took the place of the Spanish crown, our communications system, train roads and the majority of the land, belong to the United Fruit Company (UFCO), they bought land at a really low price so they didn’t have to pay much taxes, they did not pay workers for the labor instead the “rent” a pieces of land as part of a “deal” where they could use the land to survive by also “paying” a part to the company, however the land was still under UFCO’s possession.

The precarious work situations under companies like the UFCO are depicted on the famous novel 1000 years of solitude by Colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez, in a very dramatic and extreme representation, in the book after a strike by the workers demanding better conditions, the government reacts by inviting over 3000 of them to a meeting with the leadership to resolve their difference, however it was a tramp! The workers found themselves surrounded by machine guns and get methodically killed, the bodies were then thrown on a train and dropped off in the sea, after the event the government keeps exterminating any surviving union leader and denying the reports of the massacre.

Well, conditions were not that much better in Guatemala and I’m sorry to say that as in many good books, usually fiction is nothing by a reflection of reality, after years of being used for free labor, Guatemalans decided they needed a change they cannot longer live in a land that is not theirs, so in 1944 after numerous public demonstration and the killing of the teacher María Chinchilla in a protest, over 100,000 people gather to protest and stop the country for a week until the then president Jorge Ubico resigned en July 1, 1944, this initiated what some people called the first real “democratic period” in Guatemala, this new set of changes and reforms landed to a fresh-type president in 1951, it was a democratically elected president from the highlands of the country Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán .

About the CIA and UFCO

The thing with power is that is a human invention, so is fair to say that power is limited to what humans believe to be more important, as a mention before back in 40’s and 50’s we were not seen as humans by the USA or any of the companies coming from that side of the border, therefore we were not intitle of having an opinion nor to have a decent life or to be part of a country, we were only workers, just a step above from a horse or any other beast.

When a president of Guatemala decides that we can’t be a country if we don’t have land or infrastructure of our own, it is only inevitable he will have to make some changes that will not vibe with UFCO or some of its allies, and that is exactly what happened. Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán started using government power to buy the land from the UFCO and give it to the poor people that were actually leaving on it and using it, buying land from the UFCO at the same low prices the claimed the bought it, he decided that train roads should be of public use and created a plan that aim to put Guatemala on the track to development.

The UFCO did not like what was happening in the country, their lands were being taken, they now have to come out with payment for their workers and a series of restriction help create the environment for workers unions and better working conditions that were impacting profits, this went on for about 3 years and the UFCO was doing everything they could to create propaganda and manipulate Guatemalans and Americas in order to take Arbenz from power.

One thing we need to understand is the people that were in Guatemala at that time and how their connection made a coup possible, one of the lawyers working for the UFCO was John Foster Dulles a republican from Washington D.C. that would eventually become the United States Secretary of State, Dulles’s brother Allen was the director of the CIA, in order to stop the “attacks” against the company, the Dulls brother worked together to convicend the President of the United States that Guatemala was a possible location for a soviet embassy in the western hemisphere. To achieve their goal they created a PR campaign to create fear among politician and the American people.

A CIA operation was created under the code name PBSUCCESS , the goal was to take way  Guatemala’s president from power and to make sure general Carlos Castillo Armas was in the presidency so the UFCO would be able to continue business as usual, the operation was a success, however as with many thing in history “success” not necessarily means “the beginning of a peaceful and great period”, so now we need to dive a bit deeper on “What happen when you interfere with a democratic elected government and place a puppet president instead?” type of question..

About the civil-war

Castillo Armas and most of the head of states that came after him were nothing but puppets to the UFCO and the United States, they did not put Guatemalans interest and needs on the agendas, instead they were working for the top sphere of the country therefore leading to a very unhappy population that were being oppressed by their own army and their own government, this is something we need to discuss, because again it shows how bound the United States’s and Guatemala’s faith are.

Because of the fact the the USA put the general in charge people did not like him, so we did not really pay for the army nor we wanted our taxes to go to a dictator, so the USA feeling bad or wanting to keep control of the country founded Guatemala’s army and let the generals do whatever they please, this lead to an army that was not found by taxes, nor it had to respond to the people of Guatemala, the army was the tool dictators have to keep people down, either disappearing anyone who did not agree with the government or rightout killing them.

As you might expect once you start killing and disappearing people, they will start fighting back, so the paramilitary forces were born and a 36 year war started, a conflict that took some 70,000 lives and countless more were disappeared, the army sustained with US money were going to villages and killing every men, raping women, some stories from my own family even mention babies being smashed against rocks, there was some pretty bad human right violations going on and you can’t deny how Guatemala and US government officials were involved in all of this.

About the USA and its gang problems in all of this...

Well, once you take a country to its knees is just a matter of time before people that are unable or don’t want to fight get themselves out, just as we are seeing happening today with Syrians refugees, there were a lot of Guatemala and Central America refugees that ended up in the US, they created communities in places like LA and New York, however racism and violence towards latino communities made them organize to protect themselves, back in the 1980’s as their countries of origin were consumed by civil war (some of the initiated by the USA itself) they created some of the first latino gangs in the US, MS-13 and Mara Salvatrucha.

So, you might ask, what did the US did after creating a problem in Guatemala that ended up as gangs members in their backyard? Well they did what the US had been doing since its first contact with Guatemala, they ship out whatever bad shit they could to us, however we have to give them some credit, they did not think of that right away, it actually started back in the 1990’s so it is fair to say that the US had to deal with gangs for about a decade before deciding that it would be easier to ship them back to where they came from.

Even though I would not have any problem with a country kicking illegal immigrants that committed a felony to their original country, it is imperative to say that the US did not stop to think how can this change (the word again!) Guatemala and how it will affect the USA? Because if they would’ve stopped to think on that for a moment, there is a chance the would’ve realized they were making the same mistake all over again, they were creating a problem in Guatemala hopping it won't reach back to them, however we all know that is not how life works.

By 1996 “peace” was signed in Guatemala, there was even a speech by then president of the USA - Bill Clinton, promessing the Guatemalan people that human right will not be violated again and that the horrible civil-war we went through should never be repeated and the USA will not commit to the same wrong practices they did in the past, It was all good a least on a diplomatic level, however the US was on its high of deportation of gang members to our country.

There is this question I feel is worth asking at this moment… What would happen if you send a bouch of highly educated criminals (highly educated in contrast to the rest of Guatemala). that used to leave in big cities, they were resourceful, smart and on top of that we had never had to deal with a gang member or “marero” before?, in other words, the USA send criminals to a country with not infrastructure of any kind to contain them, nor it had a police force capable of facing this gang members.

Guatemala came out of the 36 years of civil war just to end up with a war with gangs that still last until today, something about 30 years dealing with a problem created by Guatemala and Central American refugees in the streets of LA, refugees that were there because a national army founded with US money were killing their families back home, this “war on gangs” lead Guatemala to a level of violence that reminded us of the war all over again, it stop the few progress we wanted to have, instead our youth was being recruited or killed by MS-13 and Mara Salvatrucha, yet again people were forced to leave the country and find land were they would not be killed or robbed or extorted.

So, yep….We are talking about another exodus to the USA!

About “Mojados” or illegal immigrants to the USA after the 1990’s

There something we have to admit about the 1990’s - today problem with gangs, it is not all fault of the USA as is never “just on person’s” fault, when you put a country in a situation like we are, people don’t usually get access to education, information, food and health care, you know, the things that once cover might lead somebody to care about what their politicians are doing or where to money goes, but as Marx used to say, seas the means of production and you will have control of the system!.. Or something like that, because, that is what the top businessman and wealthy families of the country did, they took control over the country and made money out of the always unstable status of our nation.

So by the 1990’s after 30 years of military regimes, guatemala democracy was finally flourishing, like a baby that gets into age, it started to be aware of itself and every more and more people started to understand how this democracy thing is supposed to work ( a least more people in the capital city) and what can we do to make sure it is use in benefit of the people, however our leaders still coming from the upper class, mostly spanish descendant with old money and with little interest or connection with the population of their own country., they were used to do whatever they want with  our country, they took advantage of our national institutions to control the country and steer it on the direction they saw better for them and their business, our all times lover impunity was still with us and as time passes she would reveal itself more and more clearly.

So after the war we found ourselves in a country with MS-13 and Mara Salvatrucha, with no police, with a government handle by the rich class that only cares about their business and how they can get out of Guatemala, a government dedicated to use the country to make themself richer, even if that means stealing money from heath, education and security programs that were supposed to be in place to take our country to a better future after the war ended.

We did not have (and would argue we still not have) a national identity, Mayan people made up to 65% of the population however they were being discriminated, no jobs, no services and a country that up until today is very divided. On the other had the USA in a effort to stop gangs and immigration say something like  “We’re sorry for taking your president out of power and starting a civil war” but now we will reinforced our borders, American visas would be expensive and rare for you and we start ICE to send all illegal Guatemalans in the USA back as we have been doing with gang members.

There is a concept on film theory called the Three-Act structure, which basically provides a framework to work a story into a film, helping the viewer understand what the story is about giving it a linear easy to understand sequence.

The first act usually present the universe and the rules that the protagonist has to live under. The second act takes that protagonist that lives on that context and makes them do something (find money, comeback from death, look for the truth, go get the princess). The third act can be described as the climax where our protagonist (now with a clear path) full fills its duty and deals with the consequences of such actions (as they might live happily ever after, died or do pretty much anything else).

Examples of this movies are The Lion King, Day of independence, Citizen Kane among others. So now, I would like to argue that when it comes to status of Guatemalan “Contemporary image theory” we can use this Three-Act structure as an analogy and the reason I can give for that, is the same reason Hollywood keeps using it… Because is easy to understand.

If we take into account Guatemala's history of neocolonialism and racism, it is logical to say that we are not what you may call “visionaries” when it comes to create knowledge and culture of our own, therefore I would like to say that we are still stuck in Act 1, in the sense that we kind of know what our reality is and the rules that might come along with it, however we do not have a purpose or a plan whatsoever.  

We are the little Simba just after his father died and he ran away, and in this particular case, we can say that we are like Simba not only because we are little and clueless, but also in the sense that we rather say “Hakuna Matata” to the sometimes difficult and not well paid task of educating ourselves (those who can, because Guatemala has education problems too, but that is for another post) creating culture, art and knowledge that provides value and help build bridges between cultures.

So what is the point on this post?... Well, what I am trying to point with all of this is... Guatemalan instagram “Influencers”, so let me explain, Guatemala is a country with about 20 millions phones which might arrange for a large set of likes and shares within the country, however only a few section of those likes and shares get “paid” by brands the rest is either brands themselves putting content or some content creator that gets paid by say Youtube (wich in this case I would not take those views or likes as “paid” because Youtube is not a Guatemalan brand).

The purpose of analyzing Instagram influencer is the fact that they are somehow “influential”, thus having a huge impact when it comes to set expectations of “good photography” or “good filmmaking” to new generations of photographers and producer. This influence can go so far as to “how much to charge” or what a good product campaign is, which at best can make Guatemala’s production quality go up, or at worst can take the whole industry to an end.

The concern I have over this Instagramers is that even though they are a kind of new way of creating visual content, they still present what I like to call “Bad Guatemalan habits” in the sense that they don’t really pretend to create a new structure / theory, a new technology or even understand the tools the have at their disposal (I’m talking about tools like research, image and film theory or the technology itself) the idea they are presenting is to copy the way countries like the USA use this tools, and to do it on a flat and non-reconcilable way, doing the same thing we have been forced to do before with colonialism, this can lead to a widespread misunderstanding of “how this tools should be used giving our local context”...

The thing with lack of understanding on information or tools is that the society on which this happens don’t really advance, instead they are always looking for someone else to tell what to do and how to do it, as they don’t really grasp the significance and implication this new knowledge / ability has, if we go back to the three-act analogy, it is like a protagonist who never gets to do anything on its universe, therefore having no goal or conquest (save the price, get the money, go back home), no development and not climax… Well, you can pretty much say that there is no movie at all!

The importance of studying and understanding image and film theory has nothing to do with people creating visual content or not, but with the future of our industry,  Guatemalan photographers and visual creators need to understand that “influencers” are just a tiny part of a bigger machinery, usually under control of those capable of understanding photography and images as a language that conveys more than “like and shares” but messanges and statements than can be use to make money or deliver an idea on a unique and unforgettable way.

A friend of mine told me that Guatemala reminds her of an early 90’s USA city like New York or Chicago and I kind of see why, even though you can make the claim that a city like Guatemala City must certainly have an agenda, a plan to follow into the future, the truth is that as many other cities, Guatemala city is usually drowning, trying to keep itself on float. An example of this is the difference between the rich and poor part of the city, although the difference is already implied on the adjectives, I would like to point out to a special aspect of Guatemala city, its size… So when you ask, why Guatemala feels like a USA city from the early  90’s, I may answer... Is because the city has not reach the point on which a part can change (on use of water, economic activity, number of people, etc) without affecting the rest of it, this combined with the high criminal rates and the lack of technology does remind us of a New York back in 1990, just right after New York almost went bankrupt. Understand how Guatemala City looks compared with other cities (whether is a contemporary city or a memory of a long gone city of the 90’s) will help us take advantage of the good things we have while throwing some light on “how to coupe with the bad ones”.

However we should not forget that we are in a very particular situation, Guatemala is a city that is no so big it can’t be changed and we (unlike NY or Chicago in the ‘90s) have access to information way faster and cheaper, information we can use to learn from the past and help shape a city that looks to the future, with project and regulation that allow us and futures generation to call it home.

Guatemala is this little country the size of Tennessee located south to México, it is a pluricultural and multilingual territory with history of love and blood, as many latin american countries international intervention has always been part of our history, making our territory a mix of Mayan (indigenus) and western culture (hence the fact that I speak English).

Well, this external  “intervention” can also be interpreted as an analogy to Guatemalan people migrating to the USA and other countries, as it generates what I like to call “reflexions of self” or you can also say “internal conflicts” however we have to take into account that for some Guatemalans the feeling coming for being in contact with different cultures is not always of “conflict”.

This “reflexions of self” are usually aim out to the environment the person lives in, sometimes leading to elements of one culture being judged based on the moral framework of the other, something that can easily lead to misunderstandings, racism or xenophobia. This phenomenon can easily get out of control in a territory with variegated forms of culture, religion or believes.  

An example of such mess was the 36 year war our country suffer under the influence of the USA “fight” against communism, which did not hesitate to use the culture difference between Mayans and Mestizos to fuel part of the “moral reasoning” behind puting friends against friends, neighbours against neighbours.

Even today, Guatemala has a long way to go when it comes to unity, however the increase exposure of all Guatemalans to the different cultures in our country, can help us out drawing a clearer idea of what being Guatemalan means and how we can take our unique heritage, make it last and built it into a better future.

Prisma Vol 2

“I do believe there is world class art being produced in Guatemala”, this are the words that mark the conference that was held on September 15th at the Museum of national art in Antigua Guatemala a city about 42 km from the capital of Guatemala.

The main purpose of this event was to present the second edition of “Prisma” a publication that puts together work of 40 emerging photographers, the publication was launched by photography school and contemporary art center -La Fototeca-.

-La Fototeca- was founded on 2009, with some 600+ graduated photography students (including myself) along all this years, they put this book together using work from its former students, giving Guatemala and the world hard proof of the latin american talent, as this publication not only includes Guatemalan photographers, but also work from some of the international students of this school.

About the book

The publication is divided in different sections, each section has an assigned color and the topic changes so they could give order to the work of all artist, as they all touch different ideas and questions with their work, making this book a very good example of where guatemalan contemporary photography stands and doing so while giving a medium to dignified our photography and art.

The 40 artist were selected by Clara de Tezanos co-founder of - La fototeca - on her on words “We received work from over 100 applicants and after a selection process we decided to publish this 40, making this edition even bigger than the last one”. Along with the book an exhibition has held at the museum with the work included on the publication.

The editor and curator of this publication was Clara de Tezanos, it was printed by guatemalan company MayaPrint and distributed by - La Fototeca -, you can go their website at www.lafototeca.org or shoot a DM on their instagram page or to [email protected] to order a copy.

It will be also available on France, Spain, Turkey, The United States (Los Angeles and New York) and Argentina. You may shoot an e-mail or dm to -La Fototeca- for information on where and how to get them at each of this places.

Conclusion

Even though the publication was very well curated and designed, I can’t shake the feeling that it might have come out a little bit short, as some of the artwork presented need more space and time to be showend properly, however it does not change the fact that this book is a good compendum of the work from some of the emergening guatemalan artist.

It is certainly delightful to see the work of other artists and to be able to communicate with them, share ideas and talk about our creative processes, it makes me believe that part of Guatemala is trying to leave behind its past, marked by war and hate and open new doors so everyone (including artist) can make this land, the land of their dreams and opportunities.

With nothing else to add, I leave you with the video of the book, as always feel free to get in touch for any questions or comments.

You can check any other of my posts here!

Until next time…Stay curious!.

Alejandro Cartagena es un artista y fotógrafo mexicano interesado en el desarrollo urbano y como este afecta los alrededores de su natal Monterrey. 

Esta entrevista fue parte del diplomado en fotografía que cursé en 2017, fue conducida en el mes de octubre del mismo año, tuve la oportunidad de quitarme muchas dudas y de aprender muchas cosas nuevas de este gran fotógrafo, te dejo los enlaces de sus sitio web y su información de contacto al final de la entrevista.

Espero que a ti también te sirva como un punto de partida, si estas interesado en el mundo del arte, especialmente en el mundo de la fotografía como arte. Sin mas que decir te dejo con la entrevista, no olvides que puedes ponerte en contacto para cualquier duda o comentario!..

Hasta la próxima!

Yo - ¿Quién fue tu mentor, si tuviste alguno?

La primera persona que me alentó, que eso es lo fundamental de un mentor, fue Gerardo Montiel, yo hacía mucho autorretrato en esa época y más que criticar aspectos técnicos, el quería que yo entendiera como este trabajo podría tener sentido dentro del contexto de la fotografía contemporánea.

Entonces me instó mucho que investigara sobre la historia de la fotografía, tratara de ver de donde pudiera haber venido ese trabajo que yo hice de manera inocente ( por que apenas empezaba en la foto). No te puedes quedar con la idea que lo haces por que es un impulso, tienes que voltear atrás y ver quien más ha hecho eso, quien mas vino antes que tu, para que tu descartes por completo el trabajo, porque definitivamente es una repetición de lo que ya estaba hecho, o encuentres valores que hagan propositivo respecto a lo que vino antes.

Es ubicar tu trabajo respecto de la fotografía, suena pretencioso pero es real, no somos una isla, si queremos existir como artistas y fotógrafos necesitas ubicar lo que estás haciendo y cómo eso hace referencia con lo que vino antes, y que es lo que está pasando actualmente.

Gerardo me ayudó mucho con la crítica constructiva de lo que estaba haciendo, que necesitaba leer, que necesitaba ver, el fue realmente la única figura que tuve como mentor.

Yo - Si  alguien quisiera que fueras su mentor, ¿que buscarías?

Buscaría alguien que esté trabajando, algo que me entusiasma más allá de que si me gusta o no el trabajo, es la sed interior que los está haciendo hacer cosas! y no que tienen cinco fotos que ellos piensan que son muy buenas, y lo único que quieren es una opinión  y no quieren hacer mas, por que piensan que con esas cinco fotos, ya van a triunfar. La sed de trabajo es fundamental para mi, para poder aportar algo a alguien, eso me dice que están explorando y que están dispuestos a seguir trabajando.

Esta carrera es muy larga, los resultados no llegan en uno o dos años, llegan en cinco años, esa es la realidad, yo empecé que vivir de lo que yo hago, luego de 5 o 6 años, todo lo demás fue gratis, pero en ese tiempo hice 20 proyectos, de principio a final, los subia a la pagina de internet, cuando se podía hacer una exposición o un libro se hacía, no ganaba nada, pero estaba cerrando mis ciclos, empezaba y terminaba, nunca fue como, “estoy empezando este proyecto, pero a nadie le gusta, entonces lo dejo de hacer”, no se trata de que a la gente le guste!, tu te comprometes con empezar y terminar lo que estás pensando o los fantasmas de todos esos proyectos no concluidos se van a empezar a meter en tus proyectos futuros, sin que te des cuenta vas a estar haciendo el mismo proyecto en todos los proyectos, por que vas a tener esa cosa inconclusa que dejaste a medias.

Yo -  ¿Cuales son los principales herramientas / estrategias que utilizaste para conseguir patrocinio y vivir mientras terminas los proyectos?

La estrategia principal es que el proyecto esté terminado (se ríe),  esa es la estrategia principal, que tu tengas la capacidad de decir empecé y terminé, este es el resultado del proyecto, sin algo como, “mire este trabajo”, “haber si se les antoja”, no, es mostrar algo terminado y lo que te gustaría exponer.

Esa seguridad que te da el haber terminado algo, se proyecta al momento en que empiezas a pedir que la gente te apoye, si no lo tienes terminado, se cae fácilmente, la gente se da cuenta y como tu hay cientos de otras personas tratando de conseguir apoyo, tu mejor arma para poder conseguir apoyo es que tengas un proyecto terminado de principio a final, que sepas de qué se trata, e información bien clara, si quieres encontrar a alguien que te ayude con marcos para una exposición, significa que tu ya fuiste a hacer tu tarea y sabes cuánto cuesta cada marco, tiempos de entrega, etc.

Es un plan de negocios, las galerías y museos no buscan gente para hacerlos, ellos buscan gente que ya está hecha, tu tienes que pretender que ya estas hecho, eso significa que tenes que hacer toda la tarea, o te van a encontrar la excusa mas pendeja para no apoyarte, por eso tienes que tener todo resuelto anticipadamente, de esa manera todo está resuelto para que nada mas te tengan que dar el dinero o el espacio. Al principio a mi no me dieron dinero, eran oportunidades para exponer.

Yo - ¿ Algunas vez pensaste en abandonar México para crecer en la industria?

Claro que si, me cruzó la mente, pero rápidamente me di cuenta que eso es un cliché la idea de “te tienes que salir, para que te pelen”, tu obra tiene que salir, pero tu te puedes quedar en donde estas, los primeros 2 o 3 años de mi carrera, estaba trabajando duro, haciendo proyectos, buscando exposiciones, colectivas o individuales, mandando proyectos y todo era en México y me gastaba dinero haciendo propuestas, invirtiendo y tratando de hacer presencia en México, pero no veía resultados, no vendía obras, si estaba en las exposiciones pero no avanzaba más allá de tener mi nombre en una exposición, concurso o bienal.

Un día le dije a mi esposa, el próximo año en lugar de gastarme el dinero en mandar a todos esos concursos en México voy a hacerlo para Estados Unidos y Europa, me va costar 20% o 30% más participar, pero vale lo voy a intentar.. Y cambio toda mi carrera, empecé a tener resultados, exposiciones fuera de México y obviamente no empecé a vender luego luego, pero empezó otro tipo de interés en mi trabajo, cosas mucho más serias, oportunidades más grandes, luego de 5 o 6 años de estar trabajando empecé a vender obras para vivir.

Proyectando hacia donde está el mercado, donde es que la gente está comprando obra en el mundo, que es generalmente en Europa y Estados Unidos, esa es la realidad, ¿como le haces? Participas en todo lo puedas, la otra estrategia son las revisiones de portafolio, te dan la oportunidad de ver a 30 personas en un fin de semana, que vienen de todo el mundo, a pesar que puede representar algo de dinero... Cuesta como 800 - 900 dólares la revisión más el viaje, pero no se compara con hacer una cita con cada una de esa gente para enseñarles tu portafolio

Es algo muy muy conveniente, mucha gente no les gusta, por que se preguntan ¿por qué voy a pagar dinero para que alguien critique mi trabajo?, yo lo que les digo que no es para eso, si tu piensas que una revisión de portafolio es para que critiquen tu trabajo, no vayas!, la revisión de portafolio es para que lleves un trabajo terminado y decir, esto es lo que tengo!, ¿te sirve para algo?, ¿lo puedes publicar, exponer o comprar?, yo no necesito crítica, el trabajo está terminado, no busco opiniones sobre cómo el trabajo pudo haberse realizado, o las consideraciones que pude haber tomado, si vas en ese plan ya perdiste tu dinero mejor no vayas.

Obviamente esto lo aprendí con el tiempo, yo al principio iba con proyectos mochos (no muy buenos /mediocres) y no pasaba nada, luego de gastarme 1500 dolares no pasó nada, no me invitaron a nada, ni voy a salir en una revista, nada!.

De repente cuando termino un proyecto grande como el de suburbia Mexicana, fuí a una revisión de portafolio y escucho, te vamos ha hacer un libro!, exposición en china, revistas, me compraron fotos; Pero por que fui con el proyecto terminado, presente la secuencia, con impresiones impecables, no había duda de lo que están viendo.

Yo - Me di a la tarea de revisar tu trabajo, desde los primero y pude ver los autorretratos que mencionaste al principio, el proyecto de suburbia Mexicana, los 5 tomos, además me encontré una entrevista, donde mencionaste que uno de los primeros proyectos en afectar tu carrera fue Identidad Nuevo Léon, a mi personalmente me llamó la atención la beca que te permitió realizar el proyecto ¿Me podes comentar como fue que obtuviste?

Aquí en México somos super dichoso que hay un sistema de becas a nivel municipal, estatal y federal, hay muchas becas para la creación, ese fue un proyecto que hice en conjunto con un amigo que se llama Rubén Marcos, nos conocimos en el taller de Gerardo Montiel, a los dos nos gustaba la idea de un tipo de retrato y juntos empezamos a elaborar un proyecto, escribimos los detalles y aplicamos para una beca.

Con el dinero viajamos durante el transcurso de un año, una vez a la semana o cada dos semanas a municipio de todo el estado, fuero como 36 viajes, con el dinero que nos daban compramos gasolina, hotel, rollos y revelado, nos permitió hacer un proyecto sin tener que sacar de nuestra bolsa.

Esto fue al año que empecé ha hacer fotos, haber hecho este proceso de pensar lo que quiero hacer, elaborar el pensamiento, escribirlo, de donde viene la idea, cuales son las referencias, que contexto histórico pueden tener estas imágenes, que valor histórico pueden tener, todo eso escribirlo y luego presentarlo, tener la dicha que nos dieran el dinero y  ejecutar el proyecto. Al tener las fotos, empaquetamos el proyecto y con el respaldo de haber realizado el proyecto con una beca, empezamos a ir a universidades y museos a pedir más patrocinio para hacer un libro y una exposición.

Fuimos como a 8 lugares y dos nos dijeron que si, con eso sacamos el libro y la exposición que se donó al museo donde expusimos a cambio de los fondos, luego de esta exposición se fue a 6 ciudades como parte de la exposición del museo, con el respaldo de la beca, la universidad y el museo, era algo irrefutable!, si tanta gente anda detrás del trabajo seguro esta bueno!. A partir de esto gestionando con el museo, empezamos a escribir propuestas para exhibirlo en otras cuidad, mandamos como a 15 ciudades y 6 respondieron.

Luego con el apoyo del museo que abrazó el proyecto, ellos entiende que estos dos artistas de la ciudad y este proyecto basado en la ciudad son perfectos para colocar el nombre de la ciudad afuera, con dinero del museo se empaqueta y se envía la exposición a otras cuidad.

Yo - En tus talleres algunas veces analizas películas como parte del proceso de edición ¿Te llama la atención cambiar de medio, como por ejemplo vídeo/cinematografía?  

Es otro medio [vídeo/cinematografía], me llama la atención y estoy usándolo, pero no es un reemplazo de la fotografía sino más bien una extensión, lo utilizo cuando me encuentro con cosas que no puedo expresar con fotografías, se vuelve algo basado en las necesidades del proyecto.

En una conferencia en los Estados Unidos me preguntaron, ¿por qué no haces un documental de lo que estás presentando? Y la verdad es que no lo había pensado (se ríe), yo le estoy contando un cuento, una historia de cómo hice las fotos, por que la hice y situaciones históricas alrededor de las fotos, como un documental!... Donde estas viendo imágenes y alguien están en “voice off” platicando algo.

Nunca me cruzo por la mente que eso era lo que hacía, sin embargo yo creo que la fotografía permite hacer eso, además de dejar una parte abstracta donde nadie cuenta el porqué de la foto, tu te confrontas con la foto y aunque sí esté en el contexto de lo que yo estoy diciendo, la interpretación es libre y en un documental  yo te estoy guiando exactamente por donde quiero ir y no hay espacio para observaciones, no vez en un documental cosas raras que te dejen como ¿que eso eso? ¿que estoy viendo?, además que esas cosas abstractas pueden parecer errores en un documental.

Yo - El vídeo es una extensión a tu trabajo ¿tienes piezas de vídeo listas?

Si tengo, he estado haciendo vídeo desde que compre la Canon Mark 4 que ya trae vídeo incorporado y tengo mucho, el próximo año estoy pensando en crear la pieza más grande que he hecho de vídeo, es una proyección en un museo con muchas pantallas, estoy emocionado, ya estoy empezando a armar la pieza, pero como una pieza de arte contemporánea, desligada de la foto, siempre relacionado con el tema del paisaje.

Yo - ¿Cual es el salto o cambio entre tus primeros trabajos (como los autorretratos) y trabajos más grandes como el de Suburbia Mexicana?

Todo mi trabajo tiene que ver conmigo, aunque esté viendo hacia afuera, Suburbia Mexicana es en efecto sobre el crecimiento suburbano las consecuencias que tiene esas cosas, pero en realidad es una busqueda personal.

Ese es mi proceso creativo, pero mi proceso creativo está divorciado de lo que significa la obra, mi proceso creativo son esas cosas en las que no puedo dejar de pensar, es esa urgencia de querer tomar esas fotos, pero cuando tu terminas de tomar las fotos, el proceso creativo se tiene que apagar y tienes que preguntarte ¿qué es esta foto?, esta bien que tengas motivos o que creas que es sobre “esto”, esta bien, increíble! Eso no lo debes de perder

Pero llega un momento en el que tienes que decir ¿Que es esta foto?!, y si no haces eso tu vas a estar diciendo, “Yo quería hacer esto y esto”  pero tus maestros y la gente va decir “Si, pero eso no está aquí!” Por que estas confundiendo tu proceso creativo, con lo que hay en la imagen, y eso toma tiempo, por que es negarte a ti mismo, a tu proceso y a la urgencia que sientes, para dejar que fluya lo que la fotografía está diciendo.

De lo contrario nunca te das cuenta de lo que estás haciendo, tú puedes estar pensando que tu estas haciendo algo, pero tus imagenes te están atropellando! Y nunca avanzas por que nunca te preguntas, ¿qué es lo que está en la foto?, y te la podes pasar contento, pensando “Yo estoy haciendo estas imagenes por que, me preocupa esto y lo otro”, pero, no hay preocupación en tus fotos!

No hay nada de lo que tu pretendes decir en la foto! Entonces, me estas hablando de tu proceso creativo! No sobre tus fotos o lo que está en tus fotos. Por esa misma razón salto en mis proyectos, porque tengo esta urgencia de hacer cosas, y las hago!, pero luego me tomo el tiempo para madurar el trabajo y pensar que es lo que estoy tratando de decir aquí (en estas fotos),  más allá de porque lo hice.

Yo -  Te intente seguir! Es algo nuevo e interesante

No se habla de esto por que esta raro, ¿como va ser que no se trate de esto, si eso es lo que estás pensando?, la fotografía no es pensamiento, imagínate que pudiéramos “cagar” nuestro pensamiento en una fotografía, hay si te digo, eso es realmente lo que estás pensando!, pero la cámara no eres tu!, es un objeto ajeno, que le vale madres quien eres o lo que estás pensando, ella apunta y toma lo que está enfrente y no le importa lo que tu pienses, por eso es necesario que después, con mente fría, ver qué fue lo que la cámara registro.

Yo - Como fue que iniciaste Suburbia Mexicana ¿Que estabas pensando al momento de llevar la cámara y tomar fotos?

Para mi, primero fue un ejercicio de paisaje, en ese momento escaneaba muchas fotos de paisaje en el trabajo en el que estaba, fotos del área metropolitana, áreas muy viejas y me dio curiosidad re-fotografiar esos lugares, en ese proceso, empecé a ver todas estas casitas en todas partes y entonces me di cuenta del tema ¿por que estan esas casas hay?, ¿quien las puso ahí?, ¿qué está pasando alrededor de estas casitas?, ¿qué le pasa a la naturaleza alrededor de las casitas?, ¿quien vive en las casitas?, ¿cómo se venden las casitas?, ¿quien las compra?, etc, etc, etc.

¿Cómo van a trabajar la gente que vive en las casitas?, ese es el proyecto de carpoolers, todo tiene que estar interconectado, puede que haya una línea de conexión entre el 90% de mis trabajos, ya que tengo una idea y me gusta pensar en la diferentes maneras en que puedo trabajar la idea, ya que no estoy emitiendo un juicio, sino más bien una opinión y las opiniones son diversas y por qué no tomar todas las posibilidades sobre una idea. De ese modo, la fotos de las casitas y las de carpoolers son sobre lo mismo (crecimiento urbano), si te pones a pensar, uno te enseña la expansión a través de las casitas y la otra a través de la gente que vive o trata de sobrevivir esa expansión.

A mi gusta mucho la idea de foto contemporánea en ese sentido, por que cuando haces un proyecto y lo acabas y no tiene nada más, se siente como “esto es lo único que yo opino de esto”. A mi me interesa más la idea de tener varias opiniones, incluso contradictorias a lo que ya habías dicho, por que al final si te contradices, estas siendo humilde, estás diciendo, “yo no tengo la razón”, simplemente he estado pensado en diferentes maneras sobre la misma cosa y estos son los resultados de estos pensamientos.

Enlaces

This is one those entries where we get to dig a little bit into other faces of photography, those we don’t usually think of, even if we get to work as professional photographers, teachers, art directors, etc.

We will be discussing the essay “Photographic scale” written by the english researcher Andrew Fisher. So yes!.. We will be talking about philosophy applied to photography, so let’s get started.

First the author.

Andrew Fisher is one of the founding editors of the journal Philosophy of Photography also a teacher at Goldsmiths, University of London · Department of Visual Cultures, he has written different publications and has published several books, all of them taking on the idea of “scale” and what it means in and for photography.

As a researcher he focuses on photography, networked digital imaging and its political and philosophical discourses, along with many other topics, he holds a PhD on Fine Art/Art Theory from UCL.

His work

His work can be described as a very structured series of publications that work together to convey the philosophical theories he has been working on for quite some time. A philosophy schequeme that can be applied to photography and the understanding of its geo-political, material, and spatiotemporal relations.

About “Photographic scale”

I first came across Andrew’s work as recommendation from one of my friends,  the idea of philosophy applied to the photography, not as a meaning of inspiration (even though I have use it this way myself) but as a medium to understand how we perceive a photograph, and what we take out of the ever increasing number of images being created and seen through all mediums, has always fascinated me.

In this essay Andrew is not referring to scale as a "tool" for photographers or photography itself but for thinkers  to understand what happen when someone stands up in front a photograph and how it is more than the visual experience we usually attach to it. He talks about different "scales" acting up dynamically in a not hierarchical way, this "scales" add up when looking at an image and might be responsible for the different reactions from different people to the same picture.  

He opens up the essay with the idea that scaling “has an ontological significances for photography”, in other words, it is part of the very essences of photography and it cannot be separated from it, it appears when creating an image, when looking at it, and when thinking of it, he also theorized  that this phenomenon is “ubiquitous, variegated and compound”, meaning that it exists in all photographs, in different forms, and it is composed of different “parts” or “scales”.

The main idea of this essay is to present  “scaling” as a way to understand the different ways a person reacts to an images, as they “scale” the images not only based on the size of the physical print or the size of the elements within the image, which Andrew calls “inherently scaled”, but also based on aspects like value, life, history, geography, date, personal attachments,  etc. Also to interpret how photography reacts to the word as the image itself “scale” the word that created it, this by exploring the relation of the “value-form” between the different mediums in which an image can be showend, and how they affect the play photography has had with economical and social structures such as capitalism until now.

Something that calls my attention is the eye for detail Andrew has when it comes to thinking about the consequences this idea might have, so he takes into account  the possible fit of “scaling” along the rest of ontological structures photography already possess, and what “scaling’s” meaning is in relation to photography.

The idea that Andrew provides for this is  that as “scaling” can be done in different ways, by different people, and applied to different images,  “it is its very diversity wich give clue to what scale means for photography”. In other words that photography scale does not replace any other ontological structure, rather,  is the diverse play of possibilities these categories and particularities take on their form and force.

He also theorized that a person might have a question or "scale" that stands out as predominant,  for example "scaling" and image based on "its purpose" or "what technique was used to make it?" however this does not mean the rest of "scales" get dismissed as they still working on the background. The essay talks about 3 aspects that are believed to be predominant, and uses them to build a case and explore what can be called as the most weightly face of photographic scale.

Conclusions

Andrew’s work is a very intrige way of looking at the phenomenon of photography and how it interacts with people, to me it is very important to understand this part of photography, as it will definitely be useful when try to predict or even understand human behavior towards images in general.

If you want to know more about this concept, here is the link to Andrew’s conference about the topic:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLqFi_8VSaE

Feel free to contact if you have any questions or comments abouts this post!... I have been working on a project that has a lot to do with the questions and observations Andrew made in his essay, you can check it out here.

Also feel free to check any other of my posts here!