#nikonowicz

Tytus Szabelski: When I saw the results of the Aperture Portfolio Prize - which you won -  I was not only intrigued by your photographs from the This World and Others Like It series, but also by their tittles, which contain geographic coordinates. I checked one of them out on Google Maps and it turned out to be the University of Missouri Fine Arts building. Is this the place where the picture was actually taken or – as in case of other photographs and their locations – the place where it was rendered?

Drew Nikonowicz: Each photograph's title is comprised of a set of coordinates and a date. The uniformity of each title suggests an authority of truth to them, which cannot always be taken at face value. By generating a level of distrust in the titles, they relate in function to the images they represent. In some cases the coordinates do properly locate the point at which the photograph was taken, but in many cases this data is somehow fallacious. The point ,however, is not to trick the viewer explicitly. The idea is to create a space wherein the viewer can interrogate their relationship to imagery - and in contemporary culture there is a high level of skepticism towards images.

Drew Nikonowicz, from the This World and Others Like It series, courtesy of the author

But isn't that skepticism present mostly among photographers themselves? Many people still believe in photography and its power, even if they know very well about the possibilities for manipulation. Even if people are aware of the fact that, for example, the faces and bodies they see in magazines and on the Internet are far from the real ones, they still want to have similar bodies and faces. It’s not that people stupid, but rather because these images are powerful. Are you trying to increase this awareness and skepticism?

You are right. The skepticism towards the photograph as an indexical mark has been questioned since its creation. Technology complicates this relationship though. My interest is not just in noting and calling into question this skepticism, but also to look at how it can be hard to pinpoint the source of this doubt. The delineation between this world and the one within technology is extremely nuanced and subtle. You and I could not be speaking if it were not for technology. So where do I draw the line between my experience with the real world and the experiences that technology provides me?

You use both analogue photography and computer-generated images, which represent the real world and technology. And it seems to me that in the case of your winning series, there is no line between them. Is there any line in your other works or in the way you think and see in general?

I think that ultimately the line cannot be drawn. The Internet existed before I did and as such it has been a staple of my experience on earth. In general, I think that my relationship with all of the possible realities that exist in life and in technology is too complex to draw any definitive lines. Especially when my experience with computer-generated spaces, video games, or other digital realms can often feel just as real as reality itself.

Drew Nikonowicz, from the Subtropolis series, courtesy of the author

Have you used these digital tools in your earlier projects, for example in Subtropolis? And if not, what made you turn from exploring a hidden world to exploring a non-existing one?

Subtropolis is a little different in its framework due to the fact that it was a piece of a larger project called Revealing Place. The idea was to photograph some small place or culture or phenomena that might be specific to a place. Subtropolis is a look at underground business complexes in the state of Missouri, and the title of the project comes from the name of one of these complexes. One of my primary interests with the project was how two very different kinds of spaces often seemed to be conflict with each other.

I made that work while I was working on the early stages of This World and Others Like It. Although I did not implement the same digital tools, I think the works most certainly informed each other. I would argue that the worlds I explore in TWAOLI are very similar to the worlds that exist underground.

Drew Nikonowicz, from the Subtropolis series, courtesy of the author

Tytus Szabelski: I would even say more: the artificial worlds that artists (photographers?) create, are very similar to the real ones. They are a digital representation and modification of the existing environment. It’s an upgraded World 2.0 rather than a completely different world. But do you think we have already explored entirely the World 1.0 and we can only upgrade it?

Drew Nikonowicz: Yes, I would say that, as you put it, World 1.0 has been explored. I do not see this as a negative thing, however. This lifts an immense burden off us to explore this planet. We are now free to explore any number of other realities as we so desire.

And where do you see the similarity between the underground spaces from Subtropolis and those from TWAOLI?

The computer-generated spaces in TWAOLI are artificial. The spaces photographed in Subtropolis are artificial as well. Both are man-made spaces,which are meant to look like they are somewhere else. Just like computer-generated images sometimes show their seams or fall apart in certain places, the underground business complexes reveal their hidden rock facades from time to time. Both are spaces, which are essentially one way, and through concealment attempt to be something else.

Drew Nikonowicz, from the This World and Others Like It series, courtesy of the author

To claim that it's time to explore other worlds beyond the real one sounds like an artistic program. Do you want to continue this approach as you have been since the beginning of your carrer?

I think I will continue on this path. I am still working on TWAOLI, so it will definitely continue on there. There are a few new projects I am working on that are in the very early stages of production. I'm sure that some of the same ideas will bubble up to the top as I keep working.

I’d like to ask you also about other things you made: a cardboard camera and its successor - a 3D-printed camera. Why did you decide to build your own equipment?

I really enjoy photography because it is exciting in so many ways. One of them is the science and engineering behind photography and cameras. The cardboard camera was an idea I had that I honestly just made for fun. I was interested to see if I could successfully make a working camera from just cardboard. Of course, it takes a Toyo 4x5 lens board and accommodates a ground glass, so not everything is cardboard. Ultimately, something like a 4x5 camera can be watered down to a box where light enters on one side and lands on the opposite side. As such, there is not much engineering involved. Especially since there are no movements involved with the cardboard camera (rise, swing, tilt).

The 3D-printed camera however is a completely different beast. This is something that I started about nine months ago now, and am building from scratch. All of the 3D modeling has been done by me, and anything I need to add I am buying from the local hardware store. The end goal is a fully functional (with rise, swing, and tilt in the front and most likely some movements in the rear) 4x5 monorail camera that can be sold. The nice thing about producing it using 3D printing is that I will be able to sell it very cheaply. The material also happens to be very strong and lightweight which makes for a great camera. With a lightweight, fully functioning, and inexpensive 4x5 on the market, my hope is that it can act as a starter camera for people getting into large format photography. I can also see it as being a backup camera; a camera you can take to the muddy, sandy, or otherwise non-camera-friendly locations that you wouldn't want to take your more expensive 4x5.

I have joked with my friends and colleagues that if I pull off making a 4x5 that I might see if I can 3D print an 8x10 camera. One thing at a time though.

Drew Nikonowicz, a 3D-printed, 4x5 inch camera, courtesy of the author

Did you take any of the "real" photographs from TWAOLI using the 3D-printed camera or will you take any in the future?

I have not used either camera for any of TWAOLI. The 3D printed camera is still a work in progress. I want to make sure that it is as perfect as it can be before I start trusting it with my important work. This is also why it is not for sale yet; I will not sell a product that I am not happy with myself. I have set the bar very high for myself when it comes to this camera.

In the future, when the camera is at a state of near-perfection I will absolutely use it for my own work.

For me it seems there is an interesting relation between your photographs from TWAOLI and your interest in engineering. In both cases the final effect is built entirely from scratch. Is it conscious and intentional, or is it just a result of your interest or way of thinking?

I think the relationship is not a coincidence. I would say that it is 100% a product of my interests and how they interact. My interest in 3D printing and modeling definitely has a close relationship to my interest in photography. I really love solving problems. When I sit down to start modeling a part - I get excited. I love spinning the part around in my mind and adding all the facets and features it needs to work for my camera. I see photography as functioning similarly. I have this picture problem or idea; how do I make a photograph that solves it?

Drew Nikonowicz, from the This World and Others Like It series, courtesy of the author

You study photography, right? I was wondering, what attitudes do your university lecturers have towards using such new and innovative tools like CGI in photography?

Yes, I am pursuing a bachelor’s degree in Fine Art with an emphasis on photography. My professors are very open to different uses or interpretations of photography. Especially with the professors I work with most closely, there is a strong emphasis on doing what the work wants you to do. If the ideas a student is working with would make more sense in the form of sculptures then that is what the student is encouraged to do. I think this freedom is hugely important for ideas and projects to reach their full potential.

I have to ask you about the Aperture Prize. Do you think it's a sign, that the kind of approach to image that you have will be dominant - or at least very significant - in the near future?

It is hard to say. I know that it is an approach that I intend to explore further. In contemporary photography there are so many trends going on that I think it is safe to say that people will utilize similar strategies to mine. It is also safe to say that many other styles and strategies will also be used. The top four for the prize this year reflect this; all four of us have very different approaches to the medium. Photography is interesting in that the tool used is what describes the occupation. And yet it really is a tool used for many different conversations. As a comparison, if a man owns a hammer he is not called a hammerer. Instead he might be called a carpenter, or a builder. I am excited to see how photography continues to evolve as new technologies that influence it come into existence.

Drew Nikonowicz, from the This World and Others Like It series, courtesy of the author

It's quite interesting to compare your project with Lisa Elmaleh’s photographs. Stylistically, it’s completely opposite, however when I think deeper about it, you both share a need for creating (or recreating) something that doesn’t exist or exists as an echo of the past.

I agree, in that way there is an amount of similarity in these two strategies. I think more generally though this is a technique, which is used often; taking one idea or strategy from the past and marrying it with a more contemporary idea or strategy. Of course, this is not a bad thing. Because that, as a technique, is so broad it allows for an immense range of exciting results.

And personally, how does it feel to get this award? Are you very enthusiastic and think it will boost your future career, or maybe you are more reserved and down-to-earth in thinking about it?