WITH THE NAKED EYE-PHOTOGRAPHER PETROVIC

http://www.geocities.com/fotografpetrovic/index

PHOTOGRAPHER PETROVIC

A democratic vision which "defines language and its users by means of an ac=
tivity" (and not through substance) assumes that there are institutions of =
power that represent the weapons of established speech. Language becomes an=
activity. It is active, since once established, the ability to speak absor=
bs every sense thus making language one of the elements in enchaining the i=
nstitutionalised speech.

Accompanying bureaucracy of a multitude o peripheries establishes the newsp=
eak of transitional society. The new language is embraced by the intellectu=
al elite along with the cynicism of their political victory. It is the la=
nguage of a privileged minority class. What happens to the bodies of the pe=
riphery, on the outskirts of the revolving system of government, when they =
are not seen from a cosmic, however never so safe distance? What happens in=
side these limited, yet widespread mechanisms of the groups which also have=
their own technology, their own memory, collective recollection, their own=
foundation, but are as groups exposed to, or occupied, colonised, abused, =
normatively or even violently, by ever growing mechanisms and types of glob=
al domination? What happens when historical hegemony of a legal entity or s=
everal of them in competition, as an authorised version which is written an=
d developed according to the needs, and in function of sovereignty, finds i=
tself opposed to a multitude of comparatively independent and infinitely sm=
all counter-histories? The apologetics of the Sovereign, identities formed =
within current political arrangements and thus totalised, make the authorit=
y revolve, usurp and erase, thus also affecting even the peripheral, capill=
ary authority, in its most local forms and institutions, shaped in haste, s=
tripped off all grammatical processes which could have been built up by spo=
ntaneous subjectivity of a local man. Accelerated modernism defines this st=
rategy as a chaos of sequences of occurrence of novelty by discharging dram=
atised "ethics" from this utopia. Drama is always based on feigned catharsi=
s where the unbearably banished becomes the bearably perverted. Is this the=
origin of the concern of minority groups that they might end up in the sam=
e situation but that in the economic sense, all other types of tolerance ap=
art, they cannot change their current position? Constantly in reforms, the =
language itself becomes a reform in itself. In the light of it all, these S=
erbs are no longer only Serbs, they do not witness their "golden age", they=
do not lament or mourn; but place themselves in the inevitability of globa=
l allocation of percentage of capital share ("nominal capital") in the refl=
ection on one product, one statement/thing. Are you 30 % Serb and the remai=
ning 70% Nokia? And in these 70% how many shares will tomorrow belong to F.=
C.Chelsea…? Often succeeds what is least expected to succeed. Thus seen, =
the surface of things should not take us in with its apparency. Gaping bene=
ath it there is an abyss …in the paradox of separation pre-conditions for=
progress are met. All successful theories are based on an error. It is not=
necessity that obliges, it is the outcome.

We do not know of societies which, starting from the unity of "theoretical,=
practical and aesthetic" (J. Habermas) remained only on the aesthetic (cul=
tural practices were denoted as the systems of signifying, as practices of =
representing, not as sources which produced beautiful things). But, neither=
we know of societies which managed to build up theory or subjectivity with=
out art as an excess of imagination even if realities/successive paradigms =
keep denying it, produce and split apart the multiplying multitudes and emp=
ty meanings down to human material without attributes, abandoned and stripp=
ed down, to mere posing and helpless looking-on. A specific type of practic=
al, as a process of disintegration of the theoretical and the aesthetic, wr=
eaks havoc as a function of capital. A work/practice of art, indeed, commun=
icates with disintegrations - alienations of all sorts - when it polemicize=
s, when it surpasses them, even when it is in error. Therefore, due to the =
intensity of this monologue, the remains of elitist actions through moderni=
st protocols tell that the most wretched creative and intellectual product,=
which precedes or results from it, is indeed in the ideal subject of the i=
deology - a new colonial comfort which is notoriously corrupted and therefo=
re lazy and unreflexive - due to all the gifts of God in the Garden of Eden=
. Art as surplus and a sort of a break-up causes these repressions of unbea=
rableness to at least disclose themselves. Thus it provokes censorship and =
aversion, curses and stupidity, so that it could be, at least silently, wor=
thy of being regarded as an act of self-reflection, as the only remaining c=
ondition of freedom. Even if it is aware of the inflation of reflections on=
all the Others, little and big. Even if it is dealing with the subjects of=
its realm, overshadowed by extinct great stories whose death is still kept=
secret from us, like the death of distant stars. On the surface, great nar=
ratives are still valid only for the growing "grey areas". Someone has to b=
e the artist, the third person, to witness all this. Some have forgotten, o=
thers have forgiven, vanished, got tired…

Art is meta-production - techne. Technology in its original sense is the sk=
ill which produces occurrence (of objects, of a system of signs, of concept=
s - symbolic articulation…), but also causes the takeover of responsibili=
ty to take place (aitia) as this occurrence also establishes a new order of=
things. All the components of a social group are PRACTICES. In its manifes=
tation (of a practice) it is insignificant whether we are dealing with tech=
nology in a mechanical sense or with techne as in art. This epiphany is fat=
e which links the historical with the historic. By showing in his photograp=
hs the faces of "people without traits" ("Was not cognition first and forem=
ost the cognition of personality, before it became the cognition of objects=
…?") and belonging to these people by an affinity, Petrovic documents bot=
h their historical existence (diachronically) and their historic appearance=
(synchronically). A class of invisible (for whom?), but present, becomes t=
he condition for all other manifestations of visibility. And these potato e=
aters constitute the Central Subject (U.S.A as a synonym for nominal capita=
lism, according to J. Habermas), outlining its outer borders. They are a li=
ving potential which, through its murmur and mutter of coming into existenc=
e sets into motion the dreams and activities of the Central Subject/a highe=
r race about expansion.

Foucault's interpretation is that the question of race in its original form=
was not based on the difference in the colour of the skin. French bourgeoi=
sie of the late 18th century considered itself a race. Such structural diff=
erence is a solid ground for establishing identity and for pragmatic action=
towards its development as a "Central Subject". The next invention of the =
Western mind is the concept of class, in its Marxist interpretation.

Photographer Petrovic says: "I photograph my people, the Serbs." He archive=
s an outward appearance and difference. By repeating one and the same pictu=
re, the selfsame view, he also establishes a floating articulation of one a=
nd the same group of people which is, naturally, divided into the neighbour=
hoods and small differences.

Would it be different if he said "I photograph my people, invalids… gays =
…feminists… artists… free people… hungry people…. detested people=
…."?

Yes, it would be different. The provocation is in the name and it refers ex=
clusively to the "ultimate embodiment of political enjoyment", which is the=
Nation. It is always the keyword, the password - when it is the matter of =
concern or when concern is wrapped into good intentions of dioxin, or indee=
d when there is no trace left of words and deeds. All the other places of s=
peech are already co-opted, legalised, tamed to the good taste of the Citiz=
en and classified for him to deal with these matters elaborately inside Off=
ices. In this case, when Petrovic photographs his people, the Serbs, and pe=
rsistently draws a borderline (and the place is almost unbearably recogniza=
ble) and installs a virus into the language by declaring, in the face of th=
e progress of human civilization, that there is an outside, we want to beli=
eve although we are far away from it, separated, having lost the direction =
of our discourse; we want to believe that it suggests a feeling of open spa=
ce, a rift, a yellow spot, a blind angle free from recognition… as a sign=
of vigilance and hope. According to Parveen Adams, it is vitally important=
in political and subjective sense to preserve this feeling which ought to =
be the guideline for a reasonable, responsible policy of concern.

On his web site Petrovic wants this identity to be asserted through an inte=
ractive agreement. Wish becomes a sign. Unless you want to watch the Serbs =
- it is over. What exactly is this ultimatum released into the cyberspace? =
It is crucial to find out the standpoint for this question. Can this privil=
ege of watching Serbs be seen in an ultranationalist-chauvinist light? Very=
often so, nowadays only in that sense because the ruling race, once again =
in the making - presents it in this view only. It is no longer a local proc=
ess which takes place in the interaction Artist - Society - Ideology; it is=
a universal fact (only diminished to the level of provincial, offensive an=
d unkempt, next-door-neighbour kind of thing), emanated in the interaction =
Individual - Central Subject/Higher Race, if for a moment we adopt a detach=
ed view and simplify things to a binary relation. This relation, however, d=
oes not include mythomaniac processes of art as part of the mind and typica=
l narratives on a gifted Individual/Author as a modernistic project. When P=
etrovic's Serbs are granted this position, there is no provocation any long=
er, since these are people who do not follow an artificial political projec=
t and do not really identify themselves with it; there is no aggressive ide=
ological infrastructure or projection with a political aim to assert itself=
, to be mythologized and to draw state boundaries in war, following the ide=
ology of blood and soil. However, this does not mean that the neighbours ar=
e of no use. It is rather an inwardly directed look into the picture which =
is based on the similarity of grim routines of everyday lives of the group =
members, which concentrates selected collective memory on life in its insig=
nificantly different forms, without essential change, interruption or disor=
der. This versatile yet carefully chosen assembly, this panorama where mutu=
al inward similarities triumph over differences, is isolated through an ext=
ernal historical view to a place where nothing happens; they are inserted i=
nto an interval, an illusion that they are exempt from regulation. Samples,=
protagonists of such a large number, who live chiefly and exclusively for =
themselves, guard the hierarchy of the existing structures, this anonymous =
and nameless power. For carefree people from a utopian future they could ve=
ry well be those disfigured, monstrous phantoms of the night from a novel b=
y H.G. Wells, who, as descendants and remnants of working class, drive them=
mad by running into them at night if they accidentally find themselves in =
the street.

Hans Windisch, a socially oriented media theorist, realised at the beginnin=
g of the 20th century the political subversiveness of photography. He spoke=
of camera as a political weapon, of photography as "other nature", pleadin=
g for "other conscience" and the power of photography to re-actualize consc=
ience. A desire to see things from a different perspective is not a prepara=
tion of the intellect for its future "objectivity", interpreted as disinter=
ested observation; it is man's power over his freedom of choice. By bringin=
g out his "private" affinities (avoiding the issues of identity) especially=
when they describe obsession, the presence of one of a myriad possible dai=
ly routines, the artist is indeed exposed, not merely because of the danger=
of scandal (as scandal takes place elsewhere, in the corridors and labyrin=
ths of institutions, not in public), but because he presents his imaginary =
self in its utmost consistence.

Denying us what we expect to see, or presenting the unexpected, photograph =
sets in motion the actuality of gaze (in its contours, in its phantasmagori=
cal actualization it is a derivative of naturalism). The consequences of th=
e occurrence of this actuality hit the senses even before their causes have=
presented themselves to our consciousness. It is not only our ratio that i=
s intellectual, but our senses as well. This actuality, according to Sloter=
dijk, is in fact "the discovering of crises of civilization, the endeavouri=
ng of individuals to preserve themselves, as thoroughly intellectual beings=
, in the struggle with deviations and imperfections of their societies. Thi=
s cannot be done by religion and ideology, fantasies of power and violence,=
the knights of utopia and the phantoms of perfection. Correct expression o=
f this resistance, however we understand the term, is definitely plebeian i=
ndividualism, not some half-witted populism, pantomimic as ever, "cunning" =
and always at guard; it is life filled with wonder, without the monarch of =
the spirit, without authority or submission."-MANIK