Note: If you see this text you use a browser which does not support usual Web-standards. Therefore the design of Media Art Net will not display correctly. Contents are nevertheless provided. For greatest possible comfort and full functionality you should use one of the recommended browsers.

Themesicon: navigation pathPhoto/Byteicon: navigation pathStill Picture, Moving Picture

icon: previous page

Not only are we subjected to a growing number of cameras, we operate more and more, at least unconsciously, before an ideal image acted out photographically and filmically. Nowadays, this new media-related state is implemented to the point where we always operate with respect to it. But when this is carried out consciously, only then does one have the chance to escape it.

Daniels: It seems to me that, in the works we’ve seen, there is a far greater concern for the differences between various type of images. What actually happens here is that the function of the photographic image is replaced by the function of the filmic image: in one case, films are stripped down to single frames, as in the photographic work «Interiors,» while in the other, things we normally experience as photographs are translated into moving pictures: for example, the film portraits of actors watching themselves play certain roles. So now I ask myself whether the various functions of photography as an illusory rest-stop for the authentic, and those of film as a fiction, per se, in your works, are what produce this irritation through a kind of exchanging of roles.


Heimerdinger: They way I see it, the two are exchangeable. You have to keep in mind that I never know what I’m going to end up with in my works. Naturally, it was an extreme case making a film like the improvised love scene. But even with the photographs, I never know how it’s going to turn out.

Peters: It’s amazing, though, how in this 16mm film the sounds of the playback device instantly create the movie-character. On the one side, there’s the testing setup or laboratory situation with the actors, which of course is staged; on the other, there’s something occuring that you no longer control. The controlling has already happened. And your work can never be completely assigned to one side or the other: it’s not a scientific film, nor is it a feature film.

Daniels: In your work, the actors are free to let a certain dynamic of their own develop. I almost want to say that here the work of the artist is the work of a director, but that’s exactly what should never happen to a director. This leads to a very simple question: Does everything happen only once before the camera? Without rehearsals? Without retakes of scenes?

icon: next page