In mid-October, at the Andrejsala-based Imagine studio it was particularly busy, with several concurrent events organised by the Latvian Step to Art agency. Unique among them was the opportunity to participate in a workshop by art photographer Irakly Shanidze, which united 16 participants. On October 15, a press conference at the Imagine studio announced plans for the next year's summer photo school to take place in Jūrmala, featuring the celebrated Russian photographer Vladimir Arkhipov.

The following day we managed to talk to Mr Shanidze, who was born in Georgia, grew up in Ukraine, attended university in Moscow and for the last 15 years has been living and working in the United States.       

 

Have you been in Latvia before?

No, not a single time. The only time I was in the Baltic countries, I was in Vilnius in 1986.

 

Do you know anything about photography in Latvia?

Yes, I do. Tugolev and Links; this even dates back to the soviet era. I was a mere child when I already admired them. I am friends with Links now. The ten-year age difference matters a lot less than, say, 20 years ago. I was a youth, and he wasn't.  

 

You've moved to work in America. Are American photography and Latvian photography very different? That is, if you got enough information during the few days that you've spent here.

Of course they're different. Professional photography... Art photography too has a lot of influence because art always provides impulses. Commercial photography adopts things from art; it always lags a bit behind; for-profit entities typically are less courageous because they may experience greater financial loss.

I'd say that art photography is doing well here [in Latvia], while commercial photography isn't. The first thing I noticed was that the consumers' tastes aren't sufficiently demanding, that is, they just put up with the existing quality of advertisements. Elsewhere in Europe and in America, especially, there's such a huge competition among the ad agencies and among the clients of commercial photography products that their quality requirements are completely different, that is, several degrees higher. This trend is rather typical with the countries that were formerly in the USSR. And it's perhaps not even photographers' fault but rather a general lack of awareness... The advertising sector lacks something.

 

There have been various conventions, get-togethers and seminars organised for the local advertising people, as well as competitions and annual awards for the best ad photo. What more can one do, in terms of educating the audiences?

Who are the real audiences? There are two: those who purchase advertising services, i.e., the clients, and those who see it and are expected to purchase what's advertised.

Advertisers often fail to understand the public. They may think that grassroots are unable to appreciate – while in fact it's hardly ever the case, the people are great at understanding things. There's a nice example from Moscow. Bilain and MTS, two local mobile communications operators, offer completely identical products. At some point, Bilain radically changed its ads, and the campaign became much more effective and intriguing. As a result, Bilain's market share increased by 30 percent, while it dropped for others. Since they are, in practical terms, two dominant players, it means that one seduced the other's customers. It made one think about things like effectiveness of advertising and the possibility to influence the minds of the clientele with the help of ads. It seems this has not been happening in Latvia yet, so... 

 

There must be different devices at work?

Devices are the same everywhere. All you do is employ some well-known and pretty straightforward psychological techniques. The culprit is in fact the former soviet economic system. What kind of advertising was there? "Gosstrakh", "Fly Aeroflot!" and "Save up at Savings Office!". In the Soviet Union, people were used to the thought that only those things that nobody needs are advertised. It's true that ads are met with some degree of scepticism everywhere. There's even a proverb among the advertising professionals: "With good advertising, you don't even need a product..." This was meant, of course, in a mocking way. Distrustfulness is particularly characteristic among those living in the former territory of the USSR, as is the lack of advertising professionals. Even globally, a typical advertising professional is someone about 35 to 40 years of age, and that's where I more or less belong to as well. I went to soviet schools and graduated in 1991, in the year when the Soviet Union collapsed. If I had wanted to study advertising, there would have been no schools at all offering it. It's not that easy to become an advertising pro, therefore, there exists a gap. Photographers were put in the role of rear guard. In advertising, photographers are expected to fulfil, as precisely as possible, certain tasks that they have been assigned.

 

So, you do only professional advertising photography nowadays?

No, and, frankly speaking, if it were possible I would abandon commercial photography completely. The thing is, commercial photographers are paid well enough... You have to earn your living.

My speciality is jewellery and cosmetic products; in a word, little objects that have to be photographed on a table.  The say, this might be the most complicated genre.

 

You graduated as a chemist...

Yes, but not in the scientific sense. I'm a pharmacologist, one who deals with medicines.

 

Oh, I see! A little puff of "medicine", and you're ready to make photos... Just kidding.

No and no! After what I saw while studying for my PhD, I didn't have a cigarette for six years. I was very repulsed. I don't smoke, drink nor do drugs. There are people who, after seeing my photographs, have asked what I have been smoking.

 

But it's not what your photos would evoke. There are others that are much ghastlier.

I do have photos that I have classified into my own genres of freakies and creepies. Freakies pertain to my fantasies of what I think the world would have to look like. Creepies are unrehearsed shoots, done for example in the street, at an airport or restaurant...

 

Black-and-white or colour: which is your favourite?

It doesn't matter at all. I mainly use two formats: medium format with square-shaped frames and the [standard] rectangular format of the 35-mm film. The images come out very different on these two, with totally different aesthetics. In some cases, medium format turns out to be unsuitable and, vice versa, sometimes 35-mm would not do what you'd want it to do. For each ends you need a particular means. It also applies to the choice of equipment, colour palette and even digital versus film.

 

Is film still in use?

I use it, but only on occasion. In commercial photography I almost never do it, because it's financially not viable. I use film when I shoot my own stuff. There are types of film that are very hard to replicate on digital equipment. I can manually develop colour prints. Developing a slide or black-and-white film is a piece of cake. People are nervous about having to mix the chemicals – but I have a degree in chemistry! At the Moscow University, I stood up to the challenges of organic chemistry lab work...

 

They say that digital pictures are harder on the eye than the analogue ones that are made on photographic film.

No, they aren't. I think it's just misappropriation of terminology. Digitally made images are ultimately perceived in an analogue process. Our eyes do not work with binary ones and zeros. Remember the fad of Mona Lisa images made of ones and zeros? The resolution of digital imaging equipment is much higher than the resolution of human eye. The problem lies elsewhere: When you shoot on a CCD, the image looks different than when shooting on film because the film's grain is irregular while the CCD is a bit like a piece of honeycomb. Therefore, if you've never seen a real black-and-white print, you also won't be able to achieve the same effect digitally, although, the Photoshop software can do it for you. In 2002, I had my very first exhibition in Moscow. Half of the exhibits were made on film and the rest were digital ones. Back then, I had a 6-megapixel camera. At the presentation, someone in the public asked which was better, digital or analogue. I challenged them to guess which, among the exhibits, belonged to the ten film photos and which to the ten digital ones. I offered a crate of champagne to the person who would get them all correct. Nobody dared to try. Thus, it's a mere theoretical speculation. Photographs should be appreciated according to the qualities of their visual impression. Some people like to crack histograms of lenses and scrutinise colour response of film. Of course, you can measure and calculate everything and find out the difference, but that's not how the eye sees. One always has to focus on how we see, and the only thing that applies is common sense.

 

But that's subjective: everyone has a different perspective and sees the world differently.

[Only] the interpretations differ. The physiological limitations are the same for all the people.   There are exceptions: people who are said to have microscopic vision. They may be able to see micro-organisms on their own skin. For them, there would be a difference, but for the majority of people it means nothing. Therefore, all those claims of one's uniqueness... I have studied biology, anatomy and got my third degree in psychology. I keep witnessing how all the things I have studied prove to be true.

 

Are you here in Rīga in connection with the next year's summer school of photography?

The summer school is just one part of our collaboration. The seminar we just had showed that several follow-up seminars would be needed before the next summer. People liked it a lot. We’ve also found that one seminar is not enough for those who really wish to expand their knowledge at these seminars as opposed to just mingling with others and enjoying an emotional boost. On the first day we worked at a studio, and the next day we went out in town to do Demise of Pleischner, a themed shoot. On Sunday, there was the 80th anniversary of James Bond, which we decided to celebrate. This went very well. I'd like to say that studying requires a logical series of activities. The information and skills acquired at one class should be able to be used during the next activity. My school is five years old now, and it includes an online class with students from Japan, Argentina, Norway, Israel, while most of them are of course from Russia or America. In Moscow, there are real classrooms, and I see my students face to face. We put together exhibitions, both on the web and in galleries. It's very useful and interesting for my students: you can show off a little bit with what you've created and others can explore and comment upon your work. If the idea about the follow-ups materialises here as well, we might be able to do an exhibition and observe the public's reactions.

 

Do you yourself exhibit often?

My newest exhibition starts on the 27th of October, in Portugal. It's an international photography fest, and my collection is among the biggest there. After that I'm returning to Moscow: the editor of the Fotodelo magazine and I have put together a photography course for the students of the University of Educational Science. On the 9th of November, a gallery opens in Moscow, which will be representing me and, as a matter of fact, hosting another exhibition. In late December, the layout of my new book ought to be completed. The book's title is going to be Farce Majeure. It was initially suggested to call it Photo Farce, but it sounded too flat and I disliked it. Nearly all of my stills are farcical, since they make fun of common sense. The idea of the title came to me while I was on the Moscow subway. During my last stay in the Russian capital, I deliberately took a lot of rides on the sub in order to shoot the series on spies. Who could have thought that there are so many people wearing shades in Moscow! Another Russian quirk is that they smile only when someone is cheering them up or telling jokes. In America, if you just look into someone's face, you see them crack a smile instantly, very likely a studied one, but still a smile. Russians are optimistic by nature, but they do not smile without an explicit reason. Therefore, when Russians arrive, say, to somewhere in Italy or France, they are often asked: "Are you alright? Is anything wrong?" And then imagine you're on the sub and everyone around you is like that. What a terrific series. I think it will be part of the exhibition too. Those are in fact such boring, uninteresting, everyday things – but in the pictures they have transformed into a material in which you see one thing but perceive a lot of totally different things. Those are my creepies.

 

What about exhibiting in Andrejsala?

As far as it concerns the works of students, an exhibition after the seminars and the summer school is certainly possible.

 

And if it was your collection?

I would be very excited to organise it whenever the moment is right.

 

Thank you for talking to us. Let's hope that, with the help of your partners at Step to Art and the Imagine studio, there's soon an Irakly Shanidze exhibition in Andrejsala.