Interview with Gianluca Cosci
Interview with Gianluca Cosci, mid April, 2016. Gianluca kindly accepted my request to clear up a few doubts and curiosities that I had with his views (he has also published a slightly shorter version of our 'conversations' on his own site). Here is an edited version of our much longer, inspiring, and pleasant conversation.
KB: Gianluca, may I start?
What exactly do you mean when you say: "Vorrei sottolineare il valore del dubbio e dell’incertezza"? ["I want to underline the value of doubt, and uncertainty..."] and how do you do that in your Art? And why? What is so fascinating about this for you?
What exactly do you mean when you say: "Vorrei sottolineare il valore del dubbio e dell’incertezza"? ["I want to underline the value of doubt, and uncertainty..."] and how do you do that in your Art? And why? What is so fascinating about this for you?
GC: After moving to London from Bologna I had a kind of cultural shock especially regarding the city and its role as world capital. We could say that I was totally overwhelmed and quite intimidated by it. Everything exuded confidence, authority and superiority: economically, culturally and politically. Even the sheer size of everything was something quite difficult to deal with. I was fascinated and repulsed in equal measure by corporate places like the City of London or Canary Wharf with their obscene wealth and tangible power. The cultural institutions in the capital were no less confident in their self-awareness of prestige and influence on the world’s stage and the majority of people in that environment seemed to reflect all of this. My work during that moment was largely based on that feeling of being an outsider, an alien who observes things from a distance, unseen. I wanted to reclaim the right to be different from those self-confident press releases and strong handshakes. I come from le Marche region. There are no big cities there, only small towns and villages and the (rural) culture there highlights the value of humbleness and modesty. Maybe I got something about that in my work too…
KB: Wow, that contrast must have been intimidating while being alluring too, I bet. Is that perhaps why you like to use doubt, or to create a feeling of doubt (ambiguity) in your work as a way of undermining that corporate arrogance? Challenging it to some extent?
GC: Yes, I guess I tried to challenge that kind of environment through the idea of doubt. Doubt can open up many possibilities and in my view is the very base of creativity. I don't trust anyone who declares to have all the answers...
By the way, my series Panem et Circenses was taken exclusively around the Millennium Dome which at that time was a depressing no man's land after being open for only 12 months in 2000. It was Blair's vanity project to boost his image as "presidential" prime minister. That white elephant with a price tag of nearly one billion pounds of tax payers' money was standing empty while he was declaring war against Iraq. I had the need to work on that specific place in that moment.
By the way, my series Panem et Circenses was taken exclusively around the Millennium Dome which at that time was a depressing no man's land after being open for only 12 months in 2000. It was Blair's vanity project to boost his image as "presidential" prime minister. That white elephant with a price tag of nearly one billion pounds of tax payers' money was standing empty while he was declaring war against Iraq. I had the need to work on that specific place in that moment.
KB: Beautiful. I remember that farce too.
Doubt leads to questions which leads to creative enquiry that in turn becomes something artistic, or at least becomes something... Still, totally agree: through doubt comes questioning and intellectual curiosity, doesn't it?
Doubt leads to questions which leads to creative enquiry that in turn becomes something artistic, or at least becomes something... Still, totally agree: through doubt comes questioning and intellectual curiosity, doesn't it?
GC: Absolutely, only with doubt one can explore things in a secular, non-dogmatic way… and unfortunately in post-9/11 times, our society is more and more polarized, more extreme and fanatical. I would like to go exactly to the opposite direction and not only with my work. I always wanted to be an artist since I can remember. For this reason I studied painting at the Accademia di Belle Arti in Bologna. My teacher there (a well-known painter in Italy) once said to us: “here I only want to see painting, if you want to use photography go to a photographic lab, not here”. Well, since that day I had the burning desire to include also photography in my work! So… I guess it was a sort of rebellious attitude on my part… to the point that at the end I managed to present only photographic prints for my final “painting” exam (and I got away with that despite his initial hostility!).
KB: I'm loving that going against the grain attitude! Wonderful that you also managed to follow your dream of being an artist - long may it continue! How many of us live through our mundane jobs perennially thinking that we should've done this and we should've done that, huh? And that there must be more to life than just this?
What were you shooting with in the panem set? Can you remember? What do you shoot with now? I used a bridge for 8 years, now use a modest mirrorless. What do you think of all these megapixels, and full-frame fanatics that flood photography?
What were you shooting with in the panem set? Can you remember? What do you shoot with now? I used a bridge for 8 years, now use a modest mirrorless. What do you think of all these megapixels, and full-frame fanatics that flood photography?
GC: I don’t really consider myself a “photographer” rather an artist without a defined, strict identity… Sure, photography has been and still is incredibly important for me but also like painting, or ready-mades… for this reason I do not have any photographic “fetishism” in terms of technical tools. In fact I find it quite amusing (and frankly also childish) this continuous race towards better and more sophisticated cameras (mine is bigger than yours game). In fact I have never had a formalist approach to art making so I have never been really interested in those technical problems. Having said that, up until 2007 I was using a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000. After that, a Nikon D200 which I still use. Of course I am fully aware that this may sound inconceivable to professional photographers now, when they are supposed to renew all their equipment every six months, but then again I don’t consider myself “a photographer”…
KB: Yes, this polarization, as you say, is alarming, tedious and, I think, unnecessary too. I recently saw a video on Cartier-Bresson, and he never thought of himself as a photographer either! He just used the medium - loved its immediacy. I too don't consider myself to be anything other than Kev Byrne, and certainly not a photographer (and certainly not comparing myself to him or anyone!) - I just love photography and taking pictures. Friends and acquaintances over the years have assured me that I needed (and still need) a reflex camera. But I did just fine with my bridge, and nowadays my mirrorless is just wonderful for my needs, and for my photography. It's an old adage that: it's not the camera, blah blah blah... I view all these expensive cameras and lenses the same way I view expensive cars: I really don't need one, but wouldn't say no to a quick spin!
GC: Ah, yes that's a nice comparison with big cars indeed...
KB: Another question: What exactly did/do you mean by "La fotografia mi permette ancora di avere il senso di verità e di rivelazione."? ["Photography still allows me to have a sense of truth and revelation"] More than your other media? Is that still true today?
GC: This idea was based on Claudio Marra's and Francesca Alinovi's book "La fotografia: illusione o rivelazione" where the authors discussed on the natural disposition of the viewer towards a photographic image... Do you believe in what you see or perhaps there is a fundamental mistrust towards the reproduction (as Alinovi argued)? I took Marra's side, according to which, at the end of the day one tends to always believe in the photographic image even though after Photoshop this is getting less and less true I guess, but the sense of "evidence" remains anyway, especially if one compares it to painting for example. They don't have the same weight in that respect.
KB: Yeah, both arguments seem valid depending on quite a few factors, I’d say. Firstly, can we ever be sure of anything we see, even without a camera? That’s a profound and massive question that we will be asking for quite some time.
Secondly, the mind has a funny way of piecing things together to create some sort of homogeneity – not always so trustworthy and definitely not infallible, don’t you think? What about when we remember facts, details and things from the past? We are soooo sure it was blue or green, then we are reminded by someone that it was actually red: “Was it? You sure? I could have sworn it was green…” Look how our mind always tries to make us forget our dreams too. Haven’t you ever woken up during a dream with it still vivid and wonderfully or terrifyingly “real” only to go back to sleep and then be unable to recall it in the morning? I believe that is because it knows how easy it would be for us to confuse that dream/nightmare with reality: the made up dream state with the made up awake state cannot overlap or we’d be useless (or extinct), I reckon!
Reminds me of the Invisible Gorilla experiment, ever heard of that? Insane. You know that saying: seeing is believing? It should be believing is seeing! As if all our complex neurological processes that give us what we perceive as perception can be reduced to something so black and white as that saying, but still, it’s very true sometimes.
Yeah, painting, due to its texture, physicality, and possibly its clearly artificial, less faithful representation of reality make it seem less real (excluding those hyper-realistic paintings which are, interestingly, based on and copied from photographs though). Photography, on the other hand, appears to “capture” reality, or better: capture a reality, or arguably even time itself (or at least a fleeting glimpse of it), don’t you think? And of course, although the fascinating thing about photography is that it very often captures reality; fact is, a subjective reality is often imposed on it, projected onto it by us, the viewers, with our cultural baggage, and prejudices and glories and miseries. Wouldn’t you agree?
Secondly, the mind has a funny way of piecing things together to create some sort of homogeneity – not always so trustworthy and definitely not infallible, don’t you think? What about when we remember facts, details and things from the past? We are soooo sure it was blue or green, then we are reminded by someone that it was actually red: “Was it? You sure? I could have sworn it was green…” Look how our mind always tries to make us forget our dreams too. Haven’t you ever woken up during a dream with it still vivid and wonderfully or terrifyingly “real” only to go back to sleep and then be unable to recall it in the morning? I believe that is because it knows how easy it would be for us to confuse that dream/nightmare with reality: the made up dream state with the made up awake state cannot overlap or we’d be useless (or extinct), I reckon!
Reminds me of the Invisible Gorilla experiment, ever heard of that? Insane. You know that saying: seeing is believing? It should be believing is seeing! As if all our complex neurological processes that give us what we perceive as perception can be reduced to something so black and white as that saying, but still, it’s very true sometimes.
Yeah, painting, due to its texture, physicality, and possibly its clearly artificial, less faithful representation of reality make it seem less real (excluding those hyper-realistic paintings which are, interestingly, based on and copied from photographs though). Photography, on the other hand, appears to “capture” reality, or better: capture a reality, or arguably even time itself (or at least a fleeting glimpse of it), don’t you think? And of course, although the fascinating thing about photography is that it very often captures reality; fact is, a subjective reality is often imposed on it, projected onto it by us, the viewers, with our cultural baggage, and prejudices and glories and miseries. Wouldn’t you agree?
GC: Kev, yes indeed photography does suggest a kind of reality even though a highly subjective one indeed as you said. And it includes that frozen moment in time that is the essence and the allure of this medium.
KB: Going back to your website, Gianluca, how come there isn't any accompanying text to your sets/projects on the site?? Is that that "doubt" thing again?
GC: I guess so... in reality I have to confess that I don't like talking about my work that much as I feel like I’m spoiling it [for other people] when I talk about it...
KB: So true! I agree! Besides, it's nice to leave it open to the viewer's own interpretations too, isn't it?
GC: Absolutely! As Pasolini once said "Truth is that thing that you feel deep down, but as soon as you talk about it, it disappears".
KB: Nice! Seal also said the same thing about not putting his lyrics in the album covers!
GC: Ah! indeed!
KB: On my blog, I have assignments where I have to do all sorts of self assessment and post task valuation... slightly weird! Meaning having to look at my 'work'; I just like doing it, why should I even understand it on a 'writing sentences about it' level? You know? This reminds me of what Cartier-Bresson said many moons ago: "...Whilst talking to the painter Pierre Bonnard, he took a photograph. Bonnard asked him why he made the shot at that precise moment. Cartier-Bresson replied, “Why did you just put that touch of yellow on your painting?*” BEAUTIFUL!
Hahaha, ridiculous: you quote Pasolini, and I quote Seal! I've always found words poor and inadequate for the GLORIOUS mayhem that roars around my head in a constant fizzy cocktail of harmless idiosyncrasy. See? Those words just only capture a fragment of what I mean... What do we do? Reminds me of Bjork, Thom York, and their observations about how sometimes the voice (as an instrument) is enough and they often don't need the actual words themselves...
Hahaha, ridiculous: you quote Pasolini, and I quote Seal! I've always found words poor and inadequate for the GLORIOUS mayhem that roars around my head in a constant fizzy cocktail of harmless idiosyncrasy. See? Those words just only capture a fragment of what I mean... What do we do? Reminds me of Bjork, Thom York, and their observations about how sometimes the voice (as an instrument) is enough and they often don't need the actual words themselves...
GC: I guess we have just to pretend to know what we are doing and put a veil of rationality to something that defies words and linguistic explanations.
KB: Yeah. OK, having said that we agree that the viewer is entitled to their own opinions and interpretations of a piece of work be it a painting, photo, song, or whatever, shouldn't it be the artist's duty to at least give some sort of inclination as to the why the what and the hows? Is that what you intended with your 'statement' on your site, to give an overview as it were?
GC: Yes Kev, that's absolutely necessary. It's fundamental to introduce one's work and its context but without a didactical explanation.
KB: Right, I see what you’re saying. When I read your statement, I became curious about what your sets really meant. I felt that I couldn't get that from the sets themselves, so I looked through every part of the site until I discovered those insightful interviews; in fact this is one of the reasons for deciding to do these interviews for my own blog (the other reason is to have my own up to date ideas and referencing source). From your own site I gathered a much richer and deeper understanding (and subsequently respect) towards you as an artist from those interviews. And could also finally get a better understanding of those - at first - seemingly 'bland' photographs. Something that would not have happened if I had just read the statement. But, for yourself as an artist, or any artist for that matter, I totally see the point of the statement and not a didactic sermon.
GC: Thank you for this, Kev, this is very kind of you and encouraging.
KB: My pleasure, it is simply the truth!
End.
References and sources
Gianlucacosci.com. (2016). Gianluca Cosci - Panem et Circenses. [online] Available at: http://www.gianlucacosci.com/page10.htm [Accessed 16 Apr. 2016].
Kev Byrne 1971. (2016). A2 Brief and preliminary ideas and thoughts. [online] Available at: https://kevinbyrne1971.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/a2-preliminary-bits/
[Accessed 16 Apr. 2016].
[Accessed 16 Apr. 2016].
Kev Byrne 1971. (2016). Research point 2: Poject 2 Lens work – Deep vs Shallow (Bokeh and the Landscape). [online] Available at: https://kevinbyrne1971.wordpress.com/2016/04/03/research-point-2-poject-2-lens-work-deep-vs-shallow-bokeh-and-the-landscape/
[Accessed 16 Apr. 2016].
[Accessed 16 Apr. 2016].
YouTube. (2016). Bresson Interview. [online] Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZSZLzGNPBQ
[Accessed 16 Apr. 2016].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZSZLzGNPBQ
[Accessed 16 Apr. 2016].
Alinovi, F. and Marra, C. (1981). La fotografia. [out of print]
Rino Giardiello - Pescara, w. (2016). FOTOGRAFIA NADIR MAGAZINE - LA FOTOGRAFIA. ILLUSIONE O RIVELAZIONE? - RECENSIONE LIBRO FRANCESCA ALINOVI E CLAUDIO MARRA. [online] Nadir.it. Available at: http://www.nadir.it/libri/MARRALINOVI/marra_alinovi.htm [Accessed 16 Apr. 2016].
KIMMELMAN, M. (2016). ART; With Henri Cartier-Bresson, Surrounded by His Peers. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/20/arts/art-with-henri-cartier-bresson-surrounded-by-his-peers.html?pagewanted=all
[Accessed 17 Apr. 2016].
[Accessed 17 Apr. 2016].
*Nolan, S. and Slaughter, B. (2016). Henri Cartier-Bresson: From a higher reality to a respect for reality - World Socialist Web Site. [online] Wsws.org. Available at: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/11/c-b-n05.html
[Accessed 17 Apr. 2016].
[Accessed 17 Apr. 2016].
Comments
Post a Comment