#orlowska

Piotr Drewko: „ Touch has a memory, so do not stop searching. They said you would find a trace. The fragile hand’s desire.”  This quotation comes from your work entitled „My bone will be knit in 30 days”. What is the reason behind the poetic auto-comments?

Anna Orłowska: I did it twice, unless you’re thinking about texts included in „Invisibility”, but I wouldn’t call them „poetic auto-comments”. I’m not a poet – it’s obvious, but the very fact of writing a poem seems to put me in a place, where I’m aspiring to be her, what doesn’t work out in the end. I never wanted to be poet. I used the kitschy poetic genre/form deliberately and written it in pathetic and romantic tone.  I remember liking Jane Campion’s film „Bright Star” at that time very much. It’s about the love of John Keats to Fanny Browne. Although I have never managed to delve deeper into Keats’ form, I remember being fascinated by the fact, that such a language existed once and was (is?) considered a masterpiece. From today’s perspective it sound like kitsch. Such variability is always interesting. Coming back to my photographs, I knew from the very beginning that my book about bones would be somewhat banal and kitschy, though not in a negative way. It’s emotional, slightly romantic and sentimental. I’ve seen a certain beauty in these photographs and it was intuitive to some extent. During that period, I would just take my camera when leaving home and take pictures without any complicated concept in mind. I simply decided not to care anymore about romanticism being “uncool”. It’s hard to write anything rational or intellectual as a comment to the “bone” photographs, so I wrote the poem. It seemed to fit better and didn’t split the book split the book into a typical introduction and photo sequence. Thanks to that, the book did not lose its integrity

  Anna Orłowska, Swan from the series My bone will knit in 30 days (2011)

In such moments, distance becomes the only key to understand your photography. Your work is placed somewhere in between documentary and creational photography. The narrative is built on assumptions of reality, probability.

It never was a target just for the target’s sake. I know that “assumptions” are crucial for many photographers. I believe, it’s been worked through many times and is considered an obviousness or one of photography’s features nowadays. Attributing it as a feature of a given photographer is too much. It’s easy to achieve this effect , because it’s one of the basic mediums of the “language of photography”.  Of course, I also use it, but in a different manner than before. It’s not about the uncertainty, whether a photograph was enacted or taken out of reality, but more about the assuming the reality of the message, the information I place in the picture or text, which relates more to knowledge distribution systems in general.

Photography points at what is external and linked directly to things, as hard as we’d like it to be different. I have a feeling that in your work you stay true to the thesis that learning is temporary and lacks continuity.  And so, you concentrate on a formula, which rids itself of knowing the real external world and focuses on constructing its own reality instead.

I wouldn’’’’t say that it „rids itself of the real world”. This photography is based on the real world. Many think fiction is more real than reality. Take Kieślowski as an example. He stopped making documentaries and chose fiction, because he reached the conclusion, that it has richer means to better present what is real. The situation is our own and created by me, but still it bases on the external, the real and does not necessarily move away from learning. Not in my case, at least. I think that Kieślowski is unable to see that potential in documentaries, which was later used by other authors i.e. Herzog, who turned its flaws into assets. He accepted the human tendency to act and found truth in it. I don’t know how to describe it, but I think that  something similar has happened to documentary photography. There was a need to destroy the myth, that photography carried truth in itself and only then, without that burden, it was possible to start telling new stories about the world, but on a different scale. A micro one.

The micro scale is one thing; another is treating photography as unposed pieces of reality, where reality mixes with imagination.

Exactly, although the posed mixes with the unposed more and more, it becomes equal.

The information element in the last project has become more import ant for me than in previous ones. The very process of gathering, assimilating information has changed and reminds me of a meteorite shower; sometimes one will hit you in the head, but the hit is not connected to the wider context and before you even manage to analyze it, another event steals your attention. We have no chances to win with the Internet in the race to describe the world. Still, we can add some local situations and observations which relate to something local or are made from a local perspective.  

Anna Orłowska, The group portrait from the series Leakage (2011)

Looking at your photographs brings to mind their cinematic character. One gets the impression, that they haven’t been taken as single shots, but they have been deliberately cut out of a film project.

Yes, it’s a big thread. In my diploma series entitled “Leakage”, I wanted to focus more on showing and trying to convince through working on photography that what consider as part  of the film  language (i.e. staging) is closely linked to photography and, what is more, stems from it. I always feel a bit insulted, when I hear that my photos are very cinematic; one could argue that films are photographic. The fact that I studied photography at the Łódź Film Academy is also of great importance. When working on “Leakage” and reading David Campany’s books, that something might seem photographic and not be a photograph. The same applies to the term cinematic, theatrical etc. Of course, definitions evolve, are intercepted and they migrate. How and in relation to what we use them may show how we perceive a given domain. Generally speaking, the main difference between film and photography is the relationship movement/stillness. Still, we don’t see anything problematic in calling still photographs cinematic. In my MA thesis I came to the conclusion that film and photography really parted, when dialogue became a part of film. In the era of silent cinema film was more like a sequence of photographs put into motion and was different from how we understand it today. Dialogues in film opened the door for much more complex content, they enabled us to dive into the protagonists mind, portray complex interpersonal relationships – something that is troublesome to show via photography.

Anna Orłowska, Lonely house from the series My bone will knit in 30 days (2011)

Aren’t you afraid that building precise, very correct film narratives has become unattractive? We’ve seen it all a long time ago: Gregory Crewdson, Jeff Wall, Cindy Sherman.

We must underline one import fact: the authors you mention contributed to the return of staging and construction of scenes as the photographer’s working method after decades of the reign of the “decisive moment” and documentaries. It’s very important and their contribution is immense. I don’t know whether photography has reached its limits, I don’t think so, at least Zbigniew Libera doesn’t think so. We are currently experiencing an overflow of this kind of photography, which does not necessarily mean it’s exploited.. Nowadays trends change on a daily basis. What’s more, I’d be afraid to treat Wall and Crewdson as one. The first one is an endless hole; he himself believes that there is no narrative in his photos, while the second one bases upon a simple scheme and there isn’t much more there. I would classify my cycle “The Daye Before” as part of the category you’re talking about. I finished it during the 2nd year of my university studies and I was fascinated by that type of photography, as everyone at that time, especially on the esthetic level.  It was a time when albums finally started reaching Poland and the Internet opened up many new possibilities. All were overwhelmed, as we were still being taught black and white documentaries (with social pathology as the best topic possible). It was a totally new language about which no one told us before. We discovered it ourselves. Today, high school kids are better oriented in the newest photography trends than me. Back then, I really believed that one could tell stories through photography in a clear way. Later on,  I moved away from that attitude. I even ceased to believe that photography could build, as you put it, “a correct narrative”. I’d say I am Jeff Wall and photography can contain only a trait of narrative, but there is no proper narrative in it, because it remains in time. I experimented with this in ‘Leakage”, but these concepts aren’t among my interests anymore.

I liked that in the series „Leakage” you’ve shown something fresh. There was not narrative in the vein of Wes Anderson, but a conscious belief that reality is not something directly given; that it’s something we constantly think about. The work is also a play of opposites: beauty – disgust, peace – tension. David Campany writes, that a system composed of opposites becomes the most interesting one, when it starts to fail. Do you share his view?

I like this definition of reality. I agree with it. We perceive reality differently in various situations, depending on how much we know, our upbringing or simply on the books we read. All that changes. We are exposed to different methods aimed at formatting our perception of reality. “Leakage” was supposed to be about it. This game of opposites results from the questioning of established terms – what is beautiful can be repulsive, if we look at it from another angle. In general, what is in between, outside of obvious categories is most interesting. As we know, man has a low tolerance  in most of his spheres. Take the weather as an example: if it’s cold it’s bad, if it’s too hot it’s even worse. There’s only a narrow strait for us to feel good in. Still, we never know where exactly it is – it depends on too many factors and we are constantly forced to find the right balance. A way out of this is to find our own comfort zone, the rules of which are clear and the terms once established are valid. It makes it easier for us, because we don’t have to think so much and focus so much on finding balance.

Anna Orłowska from the series Case Study - Invisibility (2012-14)

Your new project „Invisibility” starts off with void or, strictly speaking, the black hole. In the previous project, the black hole took away energy and light, it was quite dramatic. How is it this time?

I don’t know what it is. Something that bases on photography but cannot be photographed and so become known/catalogued. In my new project, I collect objects that fascinate me on different levels. The black hole keeps fascinating me and that is why it got there. I try not to interpret it, I am interested in facts as they are, but only on – let’s say – basic and general level. I think it can be said, that these photographs are illustrations to information I gathered. It’s a very simple relation. It becomes complicated once all the elements are set together. I don’t know exactly what the consequences are, but deep down I feel that something interesting is going on in the connecting points. Still, “Invisibility” doesn’’t have a narrative per se. It’s a collection of images and texts based on facts and relating to particular terms. Our heads, of course, will always try to figure out that narrative by connecting two facts and drawing conclusions.  

What are you interested in – disappearing? Camouflage?

More in invisibility than in disappearing. There is a difference. When something disappears it is not present, while something invisible is still present and can influence us, although we might not know about that influence. I’m interested in that, what is hidden for the eye in everyday life (as you put it), it’s mechanism and how it’s happening. Various strategies of hiding and making things invisible. These are, mostly, light examples, sometimes funny and sometimes serious. I tried to find as many, but didn’t’t manage to touch upon all. I’m still working on that. I wanted to tell the story of me being disoriented against so many information and the impossibility of finding their sense.

Anna Orłowska, The physical map of the world from the series Leakage (2011)

Anna Orłowska, Shape in the snow from the series My bone will knit in 30 days (2011)

An image can be defined as an outcome of uncritical experience. It’s the first, direct and obvious, but also wrong intuition. Can it also be said about “Invisibility”?

Maybe I’m trying to make them look as, if they are something different. The photographs I’ve done for this project so far can be described as documentary of typologic. After years of rejecting documentary photography as something that seemed to me a fully exploited form, I have become interested in it once again. I grew tired of images in which I emphasized aesthetics, a complex and sophisticated forn, visual attractiveness, atmosphere and climate so much. I didn’t need that any more or maybe my taste has changed. It all started with a photo of a map painted in black from leak. That photo was the last in the series. The hero was supposed to be captured in it while painting the map black. I even took the photo, but decided that I don’t need the hero any more, as the object is much more interesting and it does not disturb the picture. Thanks to that, the observer sees only the exhibit. The observer looks at an object and at somebody who is looking at an object. I reduced it all by one level. It can be done in photography, but not in film as without the proper narrative and hero the framework will falter. I present a small overview of these methods at the exhibition. Image is only element of the puzzle. It’s a piece of information, often nothing more. You take such a picture, it sometimes relates to something, suggests something, but most often nothing. The era of great pictures full of meaning is gone. I discovered that I am less and less concerned how the painting was create and more by what it shows. We get to know that from text and not from the image itself. It’s located somewhere between the texts and the photo. That space fascinates me. I try to think about what is happening around me. People say, that during one year more photos are being taken than the year before. What is going on? What does it mean? Does anything „mean” something anymore and has a context? The same goes for information – so easily accessible, everything can be found on the Internet and yet I have the feeling that I know less and less, because it’s all total chaos; it’s, as if we’re replicating data that no one checks, counter-information, counter-results of analyses, everyone has a different view on everything. It’s like with the mystery of disappearing bees, which is one the motifs in my new work. We know much, but understand nothing of it. Or, in different words, we see much, so we think we know as much.

I think that many meanings and not ambiguity are the core values of photography. The moment when our curiosity is stimulated instead of becoming satisfied.

. Still, I wouldn’t like these values to become the most important element of the image. I don’t want them to be an effective trick for a “good picture” and I’d like the ambiguity to refer to something.

Of what symbiotic relationship growing together with new possibilities of vision are you talking about in your curator text?

Simultaneously with the development of vision techniques (new cameras, thermovision systems, artificial sight) there must a symbiotic development of a newer, better system of protection from that vision – a different type of camouflage – invisible, not only for the human eye, but also for the constantly developing thermovision systems i.e. a system making it impossible to photograph a protected object although it can be seen with bare eyes. This relationship develops more with the broadening of the spectrum of registering images, which started with the very inventions of photography. It’s  a manifestation of adapting to new conditions in which you may captures someone’s image and explore it. New ways of hiding and disabling sight are a sign of the consciousness of how much this process actually determines our cognition. From a military perspective it’s still the same: us – them. We need to see the enemy before he sees us.

Do you think that such a security system will be inevitable? You speak of camouflage. It brings to mind the need to protect something, the prohibition of free filming and gathering data.

The line between protection and dependency is very thin and that is why masking and camouflage are interesting for me. In the natural environment camouflage systems are used for protection or better attack. In “Invisibility” the figure of a castle is shown – a centre for the mentally disabled, hidden deep within a forest. Such a place is located near my hometown. As a child I used to go there and wonder why all these people live apart from us. I remember somebody told me, it was their own safety… Only then I realized about whose security they were talking of. Why that feeling places us within structures, norms, apart from others and under universal control – even, if the price for that is a bigger or smaller piece of freedom?  

Anna Orłowska from the series Case Study - Invisibility (2012-14)