post_modellismus – models in art - krinzinger projekte - Galerie ...

this ‘reality’ as an effect that is first and
foremost geared to assert and establish
an ‘analogy relationship’ between image
and reality. The ‘medial effect’, however,
applies equally to the reality in the picture
and the picture. The photographic
image thus becomes a mimicry of itself,
since it only pretends to be an image of
reality even though it is not one in actual
fact. The type of construction and reconstruction
within the image remains
always visible in the picture - both in the
model and in the photographic image.
This way the artist is able to construct
various social, aesthetic, cultural as well
as medial levels of meaning which, in a
number of respects, are of a prototypical
nature. These are the positions of a
prototypical gaze – even when Edwin
Zwakman’s images are less prospective
than retrospective prototypes. Edwin
Zwakman establishes correspondences
in and between the images which do
justice to the idea of positions and perspectives
being transformed in response
to different – sociological, psychological
and cultural historical – orders. The
authority of the photographic image to
make a clear statement on what can be
seen in the picture is thus noticeably
curtailed. The shot in question thus designates
the corresponding perspective,
not just the relativity of photographic
positions which are assumed to exist
before and behind the camera by means
of targeted interventions. By contrast, in
the case of Edwin Zwakman’s works
they open up a whole range of different
interpretations – from the media character
of photography to the visibility of the
photographic image. Within this scope
this ‘suspicion’ is activated which, as
Boris Groys elaborates, creates ‘its own
reality – and, accordingly, also its own
criteria of truth’. 10
This intrinsic but also omnipresent reality
and authority of the photographic image
becomes particularly relevant within Oliver
Boberg’s image-defining process. Since
we are first of all dealing with a photographic
image, we tend to believe that
what we have before us is the depiction
of actually existing architecture. The
common model used to explain photography
– one which suggests being able
to transcend the image with regard to
the depicted object – seems to allude to
this possibility. That this strategy proves
successful has to do with the fact that
this reality in the image strikes us as
being all too familiar, that is, the general
idea we have of this type of architecture
allows something to be recognized. Oliver
Boberg actually presents us a ‘median
value’ of this architecture. 11 These many
different photographic models yield
sketches, and often, after many months
of work, the artist produces a detailed
processed model. Finally the photographic
image of a place that never really
existed emerges. Model and image are
not modeled after a concrete location.
The semblance of the familiar and banal
thus proves to be a strategy which in
Boberg’s works does not just refer to a
motif but also to the technique – for
instance with regard to the familiarity of
an understanding of the picture. Thus, in
his pictures the artist deliberately applies
the criteria of documentary photography
that aims at neutrality and objectivity. He
also takes recourse ‘to the standardized
style of archival photography and to our
personal experience.’ 12 All three aspects
come to bear to the same extent, creating
systems of reference that make people
13