ULRICH HAAS-PURSIAINEN M.A.
Curator of Backlight, 5th Triennale on International Photography in Tampere/Finland 1999

ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF PICTURES AND SUBJECT-IDENTITY IN DEVELOPED INFORMATION SOCIETIES. 
A few ideas in the context of an exposition.

A picture as an image of reality became gradually over the centuries an essential 
characteristic of Western world pictures. The picture (painted in those days) was 
authentic, meaning that the picture referred to true reality or reality considered 
true about the picture. Even religious painting portrayed the believed reality of 
biblical writings; only the Orthodox iconography (the Eastern Church) consciously 
transcended all the witness-bearing characteristics of the picture.

The development of the modern Western idea of a picture started in the 14th century 
(at the latest), with the establishment of a self-image concentrating essentially on 
the watching subject's individual identity. 

The watcher's position, the central perspective, becomes the basis for all future 
Western interpretation of the world. The red line from "God's eye" via the Hall of 
Mirrors of absolutism in Versailles to the photographer's eye does not only describe 
the history of the dominating look (since Perseus), but also the history of the subject 
generating himself, being simultaneously forced to burn his heretics and to establish a 
science the contents and task of which was essentially to support his own dogmas. 

The industrialisation of the 19th century, at the latest, brought the bourgeois subject 
matter under suspicion, and developed, together with psychoanalysis, the first method to
improve the already battered picture of the burgher. The photographic picture ensured, 
not least because of its truthfulness and witnessing character, that the rising bourgeoisie 
had the power due to the large definition and spreading of its ideology and world 
subordination. During this social crisis, the first Western pictures were created by 
artists inspired by the a-perspective  painting of the Far-Eastern part of the world.  

Outside the dualistic way of thinking, societies had developed who felt "the whole" was 
much more significant than any single object, yes, who felt the ego appeared hindering, 
insignificant or wholly non-existent.

Today, we experience a huge, increasingly accelerating global communication covering 
(often unconsciously) all areas of the world in which we live. Is it not only our bodies
that have fallen in the whirlpool of the market-oriented, industrial  utilization and 
exploitation (the worker, whose muscles became an instrument as an exchangeable part of 
the imperfect machine, could not develop his identity as an individual around the turn of 
the century; instead, he had to experience life in the class structure of a split society), 
but increasingly also our mental organisation, our emotion and conviction? (F.Nietzsche's 
Umkehrung der Werte (Inversion of values) or V.Flusser's LeinwŠnde des Realen (Screens of 
the reality))

Does the "historical factor" of identity formation, i.e. birth, family, language etc., 
fade compared to the "media factor", whose need to hide its belonging to the industrial 
complex of utilization decreases continuously, because we are increasingly playing an 
active part in the game?

What kind of changes in the structure of the new identity formation may this result in? 
(The analysis in connection with research projects aiming at the reconstruction of the 
genetic code and its detailed manipulation could also bring aspects to the discussion.)
 
On the other hand, the photographic picture (document) also experiences a radical change, 
at best comparable to the collage techniques of the 20s, in regard to both its creation 
and its marketing. But what is this "agitation" of the 21st century computer-edited pictures 
based on? Is it generally still possible to differ between ideological, commercial and 
enlightening aspects in the media? Which truth does (any) piece of news convey? Does 
anyone still laugh at the emperor's new clothes?

The limits of a document have become hopelessly ambiguous, and the subtle possibilities 
for its manipulation immense.

The limits of identity have become hopelessly ambiguous, and the subtle possibilities 
for its manipulation immens

So, nothing left but the deconstruction of myths, which have become indefensible ??