SARMAD MAGAZINE
Book One
Sarmad Magazine, Book One November 2014 Sarmad Books are published around two times a year on (yet)uncertain dates.
Sarmad would like to warmly thank all the contributers of this issue:
Sarmad is an independent platform dedicated to analogue and experimental photography. Cover image: based on photos by the contributing artists Layout, design: Sarmad Š 2014 Sarmad Magazine All rights reserved for Sarmad Magazine and the contributing artists and authors. Contact us: sarmadmagazine@gmail.com sarmadmagazine.tumblr.com facebook.com/sarmadmagazine
Peter Wiklund, Nadja Sveir, Benjamin Goss, Jose Pedrajas, Viktor Solodukha, Nieves Mingueza Tortola, Anne Henning, Susu Laroche, Oleg Kem, Samantha Sealy, Panayot Savov, Sabina Yordanova, Curtis Koshimozo, Amanda Elledge, Neto, Michaela Knizova, Nia Dielda, Danial Seyedin, Parisa Aminollahi, Maria Silvano, Viviana Levrino, Parham Mortazavian, Zouhair Zhiri, Francesco Viscuso, Claudio Santambrogio, Edie Sunday, Owen Patrick, Chiara Dondi, Monireh Askari, Livi Kessel, and Laura Su Lilie.
I
Editors’ Note In the time of commodification of human activities, we celebrate personal work, personal passion, and autonomy. We celebrate our obsession with creating images, particularly using analogue, manipulative processes, and untraditional techniques: the praxis of making images with your own hands. We welcome accidents and radical experiments. We celebrate everyday photographers who don’t think about how much value their work produces. (Everyday) photography as a practice of the self.
This is the first book published by Sarmad Magazine, which was born in April 2012 as an online photography magazine. Sarmad is a reflection of how we see photography. It is an open, independent and modest platform which tries to avoid the pretentiousness and inaccessibility of many art publications today. We encourage everybody, artists, writers, curators, and pure enthusiasts to get in touch with us.
II
The Conservatism of Pursuing ‘Good’ Image Alireza Abbasy
III
Where does the obsession with creating “perfect” images come from in photography? The mere idea of existence of a “perfect” implies existence of a system of “rights” and “wrongs”. In other forms of art, e.g. sculpture, painting or performance, it has long been accepted that there are no particular criteria based on which one can judge the quality of a sculpture/painting/piece of performance. Nevertheless, in photography, there seems to be “good” and “bad”, “right” and “wrong” everywhere. In photography schools, people are constantly talking about “good” composition, “right” exposure, “good” contrast, “right” lighting, “right” developing time, “right” developing temperature, etc. There’s a “right” way for doing everything. A good fine art photographer is generally expected to be a control freak who ‘designs’ all the details of the scene, creates the perfect shadows, masters the model, is absolutely sure about how everything is going to turn out, and pushes the
shutter at the exact right time. There’s no room for experimenting, no playfulness, no room for true creativity. The results are sober, soulless, and totally expectable (at least by the photographer). But why is that so? What’s the root of this profound conservatism in photography? Photography (working with cameras) is technical in nature, and that, logically, has played a key role in creation of a system of rights and wrongs. In the beginning, as the first nerdy people started to work with cameras, naturally, there was no conception of “right” and “wrong”, but the technicalities of the apparatus and the many parameters that the photographer had to take care of (for taking the photo and then developing it), forced themselves on the photographer, who otherwise could have been seen a true experimental artist. As cameras became more widely available and accessible for masses of people, photography turned into something that could and should be “taught”, and then, various IV
Photography, A Form of Image Production Golnar Abbasi
VII
1 The very first developments of the Digital was not (yet) used by everyone but by a few: the media and big production companies. This exclusive system worked with creation of a (passive) audience dependent on these producers. And that created a certain hierarchy of image. High-resolution images in the media on the one hand, and underground cycle of sharing low-res copies of the same, on the other.[1] With creating the possibility for everyone to use digital technologies and the internet a whole new phase began. The introduction of digital camera marketed almost purely based on its technological features, fetishized good quality high-resolution image and this became what everybody expected from their own photographs. This went (even) further with the possibility of not only showcasing but also sharing, editing and copying images for everyone. Online social networks for image archiving involving millions of individuals (and not museums or institutions
as they still have a lot more to share than they actually do) grew tremendously bigger. These procedures and their by-products broke down the previous hierarchy of images created by the capital and posed a new one. The fiftieth-time copied and shared image is not anymore within the underground cycle of images, quite the opposite; it constitutes the new mode of Capital where each individual is an agent of the media. The generation shift in mass-produced cameras is paradigmatic to this situation. Production of analogue cameras decreased dramatically with introduction of digital ones. They started from zillion-megapixel-resolution fancy big cameras, and ended up with new Polaroid cameras and vintage-looking small digital cameras with leather covers– just like the analogue times. In the midst of these processes of objectification of the past and commodification of the image, does “making image� have the same meaning as in the past? VIII
Names of the artists are listed at the end of the book. Images marked with * are rotated.
1
4
14
18
34
21
27
34
38
42
45
49
54
57
Page
Artist
1
Peter Wiklund
21
Amanda Elledge
41
Peter Wiklund *
2
Nadja Sveir
22
Neto
42
Peter Wiklund
3
Benjamin Goss
23
Neto
43
Francesco Viscuso
4
Benjamin Goss
24
Michaela Knizova
44
Francesco Viscuso
5
Jose Manuel Pedrajas
25
Nia Dielda
45
Francesco Viscuso
6
Viktor Solodukha
26
Danial Seyedin
46
Claudio Santambrogio
7
Nieves Mingueza Tortola
27
Parisa Aminollahi
47
Claudio Santambrogio
8
Nieves Mingueza Tortola
28
Elizabeth Haust
48
Susu Laroche
9
Nieves Mingueza Tortola
29
Maria Silvano
49
Samantha Sealy
10
Anne Henning
30
Viviana Levrino
50
Edie Sunday
11
Susu Laroche
31
Federica Campochiaro
51
Owen Patrick
12
Susu Laroche
32
Parham Mortazavian
52
Chiara Dondi
13
Susu Laroche
33
Peter Wiklund
53
Jose Manuel Pedrajas
14
Oleg Kem
34
Alireza Abbasy
54
Nadja Sveir
15
Oleg Kem
35
Alireza Abbasy
55
Laura Su Lilie
16
Samantha Sealy
36
Alireza Abbasy
56
Monireh Askari
17
Samantha Sealy
37
Alireza Abbasy
57
Monireh Askari
18
Panayot Savov, Sabina Yordanova
38
Zouhair Zhiri
58
Monireh Askari
19
Curtis Koshimozo
39
Panayot Savov, Sabina Yordanova
59
Livi Kessel
20
Amanda Elledge
40
Zouhair Zhiri
60
Livi Kessel
* Three months of exposure.
facebook.com/sarmadmagazine sarmadmagazine.tumblr.com
An independent magazine for experimental analogue photography