Di Mauro G. De Bonis
some time now, the question is meaning there is really a festival dedicated to an art form (any). In the film, at least in Italy, we have witnessed in recent years in a concentration spaventosa di eventi che ha impoverito la forza del “meccanismo-festival” trasformandolo solo in una vetrina (più o meno ampia e utile) organizzata non tanto per una vera esigenza culturale (di ricerca) ma per soddisfare qua e là municipalità varie, istituzioni e potentati politici che avevano bisogno di un megafono in grado di amplificare l’immagine appannata di un luogo, di un museo, di una città. In campo fotografico, il discorso (se possibile) si fa ancora più complesso, visto che il nostro paese ha visto il fiorire di un sistema di “micro-festival”, divenuto una sorta di circolo autoreferenziale iper concentrato sul mondo del fotogiornalismo e su quello amatoriale.
Since its inception the Festival of Photography in Rome tried to escape from logic to it, serving as a demonstration by the European outlook (see Arles) and ideal space for the production of photography, to discover unknown talents in Italy, and the nerve center of involvement of the "territory".
Over the years, photography was driven by its designer and founder Marco Delogu, which has often been accused (probably with some reason) a too personal and decision-making, especially on the arrangements for the annual construction program. The fact is that without the dedication of its designer, photographer, likely would never have existed. And who criticize, if not those who are open in the first person who actually does something? Stigmatize from outside a cultural product is no easy task that often has the flavor of the gratuity.
Well, this writer has always considered FotoGrafia heritage of the city of Rome but also an event imperfect, perhaps a bit 'broken, lost, confused and hypertrophic (at least until 2008). Nevertheless, this event had a lively (perhaps a bit 'crazy), which allowed the whole program, maybe not organic, even without a real focus of the situation of photographic art world, proposing the sudden "flashes of photography ", as it rarely happened that see in Italy.
Over the years, photography was driven by its designer and founder Marco Delogu, which has often been accused (probably with some reason) a too personal and decision-making, especially on the arrangements for the annual construction program. The fact is that without the dedication of its designer, photographer, likely would never have existed. And who criticize, if not those who are open in the first person who actually does something? Stigmatize from outside a cultural product is no easy task that often has the flavor of the gratuity.
Well, this writer has always considered FotoGrafia heritage of the city of Rome but also an event imperfect, perhaps a bit 'broken, lost, confused and hypertrophic (at least until 2008). Nevertheless, this event had a lively (perhaps a bit 'crazy), which allowed the whole program, maybe not organic, even without a real focus of the situation of photographic art world, proposing the sudden "flashes of photography ", as it rarely happened that see in Italy.
Well, after the transition of the 2009, 2010, was to be the year of the revival of the Festival, his catharsis, his alignment with certain contemporary trends, perhaps never fully traced in the previous editions.
Apart from the "Commission Rome," was eagerly awaited the new structure, three sections (Photography and Art, Photography and New Media, Photography and Publishing). An ambitious project which involved a huge and serious work of research can offer a modern vision of the photograph in compliance of photography itself.
Our visit to the spaces of MACRO-Testaccio (actual location of the Festival, apart from three foreign academies and a circuit very low) expectations, then, was preceded by no means characterized by injury and prevention. In fact, we expected a more modern and timely event, capable of becoming a rational representation of contemporary trends and the emergence of photography today, and tomorrow.
The speech made by Marco Delogu (namely that it is very easy to shoot zero on those things makes exposing the first person) is also valid for the three curators of the 2010 Paul Wombell (photography and contemporary art), Valentina Tanni (photography and new media), Marc Prust (photography and publishing). It will be said, therefore: easy to criticize them.
Well, despite our awareness of the enormous difficulties (often economic in nature) in which you have to juggle festival organizers and the good intentions of the neo-curators, we can not fail to intellectual honesty and professional dall'evidenziare our concerns with respect to the final result of this process of mutation Roman Festival.
Apart from the "Commission Rome," was eagerly awaited the new structure, three sections (Photography and Art, Photography and New Media, Photography and Publishing). An ambitious project which involved a huge and serious work of research can offer a modern vision of the photograph in compliance of photography itself.
Our visit to the spaces of MACRO-Testaccio (actual location of the Festival, apart from three foreign academies and a circuit very low) expectations, then, was preceded by no means characterized by injury and prevention. In fact, we expected a more modern and timely event, capable of becoming a rational representation of contemporary trends and the emergence of photography today, and tomorrow.
The speech made by Marco Delogu (namely that it is very easy to shoot zero on those things makes exposing the first person) is also valid for the three curators of the 2010 Paul Wombell (photography and contemporary art), Valentina Tanni (photography and new media), Marc Prust (photography and publishing). It will be said, therefore: easy to criticize them.
Well, despite our awareness of the enormous difficulties (often economic in nature) in which you have to juggle festival organizers and the good intentions of the neo-curators, we can not fail to intellectual honesty and professional dall'evidenziare our concerns with respect to the final result of this process of mutation Roman Festival.
The impression is that the elephant has given birth to a mouse. The three sections created for the occasion placed in the halls of MACRO-Testaccio brought to the public conception of photography vaguely depressed and not able to relocate within the modern photography movement of the visual arts today. It seems that too much of the conceptualization do (do?) photography is detrimental to the discipline. Let us explain. Take for example the section
Photography and New Media and its written presentation prepared by the curator Valentina Tanni. It is clear that we have wanted to find not so much the actual relationship between photography and the media today as quite a few cases (other already exceeded) to use conceptual / linguistic digital image (image, not photos) in modern communication systems. That there is "a process of remediation" or "relentless spread of the photographic" as a matter of incontrovertible fact, as undeniable is the nature of "malleable" in the photography. But what to do "these processes" to do with photography? If you want to argue that "taking pictures" is not (more) the heart of photographic, becomes an old speech, you return to issues already resolved by the photograph and subsequently extended by contemporary art. As for the "emergence of a real beauty," we should agree on the concept of aesthetic debate that perhaps would lead us too far.
Books On Photography section and suspend the proceedings, as more than a sense of the curatorial project (of which there is truly escape the substance) there is sembrato striminzito l’impianto espositivo, cioè l’impatto della sezione all’interno del progetto del Festival. Abbiamo avuto la sensazione di trovarci davanti all’abbozzo, o all’evocazione, di una sezione piuttosto che dinanzi una sezione vera e propria. Fotografia e arte contemporanea ha dovuto pagare invece forse un’adesione un po’ castrante al tema del festival (ma perché si insiste ancora con il tema?) che probabilmente ha impedito al suo curatore di spaziare in maniera libera e realmente innovativa nel settore in questione.
Infine, ancora una notazione sulla quasi totale assenza di neo-progetti (a parte quelli di Tod Papageorge su Roma e quello di Giuliano Matteucci intitolato Ecclesia ) che ha trasformato il festival non in un luogo creativo ma in uno spazio del già esistente, a volte del già visto.
Photography and New Media and its written presentation prepared by the curator Valentina Tanni. It is clear that we have wanted to find not so much the actual relationship between photography and the media today as quite a few cases (other already exceeded) to use conceptual / linguistic digital image (image, not photos) in modern communication systems. That there is "a process of remediation" or "relentless spread of the photographic" as a matter of incontrovertible fact, as undeniable is the nature of "malleable" in the photography. But what to do "these processes" to do with photography? If you want to argue that "taking pictures" is not (more) the heart of photographic, becomes an old speech, you return to issues already resolved by the photograph and subsequently extended by contemporary art. As for the "emergence of a real beauty," we should agree on the concept of aesthetic debate that perhaps would lead us too far.
Books On Photography section and suspend the proceedings, as more than a sense of the curatorial project (of which there is truly escape the substance) there is sembrato striminzito l’impianto espositivo, cioè l’impatto della sezione all’interno del progetto del Festival. Abbiamo avuto la sensazione di trovarci davanti all’abbozzo, o all’evocazione, di una sezione piuttosto che dinanzi una sezione vera e propria. Fotografia e arte contemporanea ha dovuto pagare invece forse un’adesione un po’ castrante al tema del festival (ma perché si insiste ancora con il tema?) che probabilmente ha impedito al suo curatore di spaziare in maniera libera e realmente innovativa nel settore in questione.
Infine, ancora una notazione sulla quasi totale assenza di neo-progetti (a parte quelli di Tod Papageorge su Roma e quello di Giuliano Matteucci intitolato Ecclesia ) che ha trasformato il festival non in un luogo creativo ma in uno spazio del già esistente, a volte del già visto.
Con questo articolo, ci rendiamo conto di manifestare un giudizio che potrebbe essere a suo volta criticato. Di ciò ne siamo coscienti e accetteremo con il giusto spirito ogni contro-valutazione (questa è la dialettica democratica).
Il nostro scopo è solo quello di aprire un dialogo e un dibattito corretto su un evento culturale che sta cercando di trasformarsi, tra mille rischi e insidie. Non sarebbe interessante che tutte le realtà che ruotano, a vario titolo, intorno a questo festival partecipassero a un confronto costruttivo, trasparente e civile, così come avviene in ambito cinematografico? Magari, sul web oppure in incontri pubblici? Noi riteniamo di si.
Il nostro scopo è solo quello di aprire un dialogo e un dibattito corretto su un evento culturale che sta cercando di trasformarsi, tra mille rischi e insidie. Non sarebbe interessante che tutte le realtà che ruotano, a vario titolo, intorno a questo festival partecipassero a un confronto costruttivo, trasparente e civile, così come avviene in ambito cinematografico? Magari, sul web oppure in incontri pubblici? Noi riteniamo di si.
Per concessione di Cultframe - Arti Visive
0 comments:
Post a Comment