Michael Reisch


English: Michael Reisch: Work-Process Groups of Works 2010-2018+

Deutsch: bitte downscrollen

 

 

"Ohne Titel (Untitled)", 8/, 14/, 15/, 16/, 17/, 20/

 

In their origin the groups of works "Ohne Titel (Untitled)", 8 /, 14 /, 15 /, 16 /, 17 /, 20 / are entirely computer-generated and executed cameraless. At the starting point of the image creation, no traditional photographic recording techniques, nor already existing pictures, data or archive material are used. Rather, I use tools from the Photoshop program (that is, an industrially created standard algorithm in photography) as a starting point, with which I generate my pictures (photographs) in the computer myself (Working Group 8 /). All steps carried out with the computer are initially 2-dimensional (2D) designed and executed, they consist in the superimposition of abstract graphic surfaces in black, gray and white. During the process the interferences generated in this way evoke optical illusions in the form of figurative/representational appearances (working groups 14 / and 15 /).

In the following working-groups, I translate these 2-dimensional works into 3-dimensional, real, material, objects. I imagine the illusions, the "apparent entities” created by those interferences, and I realise them in the computer using CAD programs (used, for example, in design or architecture). I materialise them as 3D printed objects/sculptures/structures (working-group 16 /). The generated and materialised “entities, objects” then serve as "motives", I photograph them in a photo studio using traditional photographic recording techniques (camera/tripod/light/background) (working-group 17/). The generated "entities, formations" can appear both in the photos, as well as objects/sculptures in the exhibition context; moreover, they are able to "jump out of the picture" into an architectural, real space in which they contextualise themselves (group of works 20 /).

This is a coherent and ongoing project (2010 to 2018+); whereby, starting from a basic constellation, different generations have emerged in the sense of a genealogical tree:

 

 

Branch 14/, Status 2/2018

 

Branch15/, Status 2/2018

 

 

 

 

 

Group of Works 8/, 2010-2013

 

          Icon of the Photoshop-Gradient-Tool

 

For the creation of group of works 8 / Ohne Titel (Untitled) I apply different variants of the Photoshop gradient algorithm in the computer in black and white on 180x240cm image size (the gradient tool can, inter alia, produce coloured/non-coloured gradients as graphical surfaces, see icon). The created files are exposed as digital C-prints and processed as Diasec with acrylic glass / aluminum Dibond.

The gradient-tool icon is my starting point, my "motif", which I then „photograph" - though not in a traditional sense, as it is able to compute itself by means of its own algorithmic properties. In some works of this working group, I have used the tools contained in the program in their original forms; in others I have created reduced compositions, e.g. combined images from several applications of the gradient tool. The enter-key on the computer keyboard replaces the trigger on the camera. The final size of the image object (180x240cm), the original, is based on the human body size.

 

 

 

 

 

Group of Works 14/, 2012-2014 and Group of Works 15/, 2012-2016

 

         

 

Through experimental further development of the purely abstract, 2-dimensional gradients from the predecessor group of works, initial unintentional “representational appearances” arose in these groups of works (14 / and 15 /). These "object claims" are based exclusively on optical illusions; they are illusions that result from interferences, from the results of the partly automatic-concrete, partly subjective-compositional work process. They are based neither on real existing, "representational" phenomena, nor are they targeted as "objects", recognizable structures or the such (no use of 3D design programs).

They are based on "nothing", the occurance of “meaning” (for example, "folding") is a result of the generative work process in conjunction with the subjective perception of the viewer, and not an intended setting in the sense of a design or a planned representation. I only terminate the working process at the point where (subjectively) "meaning" occurs (I regard the "meaning" or its mediation as an open potential, and not, as in traditional depictive photography, as the primary goal of the picture). The sizes of works 14 / and 15 / "Untitled" range from 40x30cm to 160x120cm. The originals are printed on fine-art paper as archival pigment prints, mounted, and appear as "picture objects" with a white frame and museum glass.

 

 

 

 

 

Group of Works 16/, 2016-2018+

 

 

For the creation of the 3D printed works 16 / I have transferred the "object claims" of the previous work groups (14 / and 15 /) into a physical presence - they are "materialised". I imagined the “associated entities”, the “object-claims” as real objects, and and drew them on the computer using a CAD program. I have assigned them a dimension and material, and then 3D-printed them. The CAD process contains an as exact as possible copy! of the source images, line by line, as well as reactions to the requirements of physical space such as statics, gravity, minimum wall thicknesses, etc. "Mutations" of the initial form are also possible and appear in different forms in the transition from virtual to physical physical space. The sizes of the "objects", "structures" are currently at an average of about 25x20x15cm, as a material I have chosen a semi-transparent stereolithography resin.

 

 

 

 

 

Group of Works 17/, 2016-2018+

 

  

 

For the creation of these works (series 17 /) I photographed some of the 3D-printed "entities" (16 /) in a classic studio setting in a "documentary" sense (the photo as a document/proof of the existence of the generated objects). The files created in this way are printed printed as printouts in different ways, that are all common in the field of photography or product design. They are produced in different sizes and using different presentation techniques. Versioning: A particular “motif” (the photographed entity in front of a particular background with certain light and viewing angle) may appear in different versions within the specified edition (e.g., black-and-white, different size, different paper, etc.). The sizes of the works, of the "picture objects" range from 26,5x21cm to 300x250cm, using Ink-jet fine art prints, A1A art prints, lambda and light jet processes, UV direct printing on Dibond with car air-brush etc. Also, the 3D printed "entities", the "motifs" are produced in different processes and materials, e.g. 3D sintering process / polyamides or 3D sintering / Alumide.

 

 

 

 

 

Group of Works 20/, 2017-2018+

 

It seemed interesting to me not only to photograph the generated “entities”, but also to further contextualize them; to implement these new "objects / entities" into already existing situations of physical experience space. My initial concern adresses the (respective) exhibition space within an art-context. The real exhibition space is measured, and then, using computer-programs common in architecture, a 3D scale model is created, that depicts the “entities” as fused with the measured, existing architectural space; designing a potentially real, site-specific architectural situation. These scale designs are realised as 2D plotter-drawings, as 3D printed scale architectural models, and also as "real" objects. They are always exhibited directly site-specific, in the respective architectural situation, where, potentially speaking, they can be photographed again (the jump from the exhibition space / art context into the public space is part of the project and planned, as are further "contextualisations" beyond the architectural realm, Status 2/2018).

 

 

Here, I follow the possibilities of the digital field: all the technical steps I use are based on and linked by digital technology (ranging from the photographic shot with the camera to the image editing program, various CAD programs to 3D printing with various materials such as plastic or concrete).

 

 

Status 2/2018, Michael Reisch           

 

 

 

Michael Reisch: Arbeitsprozess Werkgruppen 2010-2018+

 

"Ohne Titel (Untitled)", 8/, 14/, 15/, 16/, 17/, 20/

 

Die Arbeiten der Werkgruppen "Ohne Titel (Untitled)", 8/, 14/, 15/, 16/, 17/, 20/ sind im Ursprung vollständig computergeneriert und kameralos entstanden. Ich greife am Ausgangspunkt der Bilderstellung weder auf traditionelle abbildend-fotografische Aufnahmetechniken, noch auf bereits vorhandene Bilder, Daten oder Archivmaterial zurück; vielmehr verwende ich als Ausgangspunkt Werkzeuge des Photoshop-Programms (also industriell erstellte Standardalgorithmen für den Bereich Fotografie), mit denen ich meine Bilder am Computer selbst generiere. (Werkgruppe 8/). Alle Arbeitsschritte am Computer sind anfänglich 2-dimensional (2D) konzipiert und ausgeführt, sie bestehen in der Überlagerung ungegenständlich-abstrakter grafischer Flächen in Schwarz, Grau und Weiß. Die so generierten Interferenzen rufen optische Täuschungen in Form von gegenständlichen Anmutungen hervor (Werkgruppen 14/ und 15/).

In den darauffolgenden Werkgruppen übersetze ich diese 2-dimensionalen Arbeiten in 3-dimensionale, reale, materiale, Objekte. Ich stelle mir die durch Interferenzen hervorgerufenen Illusionen, die „scheinbaren Gebilde“ „real“ vor, realisiere sie am Computer mithilfe von CAD-Programmen (die z.B. im Design- oder Architekturbereich Anwendung finden), und materialisiere, „verwirkliche“ sie als 3D-gedruckte Objekte/Skulpturen/Gebilde (Werkgruppe 16/).

Die so generierten und materialisierten Gebilde dienen anschließend als „Motive“, ich fotografiere sie im Fotostudio mithilfe traditionell abbildend-fotografischer Aufnahmetechniken (Kamera/Stativ/Licht/Hintergrund) (Werkgruppe 17/).

Die generierten „Gebilde“ können sowohl in den Fotos, als auch als Objekte/Skulpturen im Ausstellungskontext auftreten; sie vermögen darüber hinaus „aus dem Bild“ auch in den architektonischen, realen Raum zu „springen“ und sich dort zu kontextualisieren (Werkgruppe 20/).

 

Es handelt sich hierbei um ein zusammenhängendes und fortlaufendes Projekt (2010 bis 2018+); wobei sich ausgehend von einer Basiskonstellation verschiedene stammbaumartig auseinander hervorgegangene „Generationen“ ergeben haben:

 

 

14/er-Zweig, Stand 1/2018

 

15/er-Zweig, Stand 1/2018

 

 

 

 

Werkgruppe 8/, 2010-2013

 

          Icon des Photoshop-Verlaufswerkzeugs

 

Für die Erstellung der Arbeiten der Werkgruppe 8/ Ohne Titel (Untitled) wende ich im Computer verschiedene Varianten des Photoshop-Verlaufsalgorithmus in Schwarz-Weiß auf 180x240cm Bildgröße an (das Verlaufswerkzeug kann u.a. farbige/nichtfarbige Verläufe als grafische Flächen erzeugen, siehe Icon). Die erstellten Dateien werden als digitale C-Prints ausbelichtet und als Diasec mit Acrylglas/Aluminium-Dibond weiterverarbeitet.

Das Verlaufswerkzeug-Icon des Photoshop-Programms betrachte ich hierbei im fotografischen Sinne als mein „Motiv“, das ich allerdings nicht im klassischen Sinne fotografiere, sondern das sich vielmehr mithilfe der ihm eigenen algorithmischen Eigenschaften als Bild selbst abzubilden vermag. Die Enter-Taste der Computertastatur ersetzt den Auslöser der Kamera. Bei einigen Arbeiten dieser Werkgruppe habe ich die im Programm enthaltenen Verlaufswerkzeuge unverändert angewendet; bei anderen sind reduzierte Kompositionen bzw. Kombinationen erstellt. Die endgültige Größe des Bildobjekts (180x240cm), des Originals, orientiert sich an der menschlichen Körpergröße.

 

 

 

Werkgruppe 14/, 2012-2014 und Werkgruppe 15/, 2012-2016

 

   

 

Durch experimentelle Weiterentwicklung der rein abstrakten, 2-dimensionalen Verläufe aus der Vorgänger-Werkgruppe haben sich in diesen Werkgruppen (14/ und 15/) zunächst nicht beabsichtigte gegenständliche Anmutungen eingestellt. Diese „Objektbehauptungen“ basieren ausschließlich auf optischen Täuschungen, sie sind Illusionen, die sich aus Interferenzen, aus Ergebnissen des teils automatisch-konkreten, teils subjektiv kompositorischen Arbeitsprozesses ergeben. Ihnen liegen weder real existente, „gegenständliche“ Phänomene zugrunde, noch sind sie gezielt als „Gegenstände“, erkennbare Strukturen o.ä. entworfen (kein Einsatz von 3D-Design-Programmen).

Sie basieren auf „Nichts“, das Sich-Einstellen von Bedeutung (z.B. „Faltung“) ist ein Ergebnis des generativen Arbeitsprozesses im Zusammenwirken mit der subjektiven Wahrnehmung des Betrachters, und keine intendierte Setzung im Sinne eines Entwurfs oder einer geplanten Darstellung. Ich beende lediglich den Arbeitsprozess an dem Punkt, wo sich (subjektiv) „Bedeutung“ einstellt (die „Bedeutung“ bzw. deren Vermittlung betrachte ich hierbei als ein offenes Potential, und nicht, wie z.B. in der traditionellen abbildenden Fotografie, als den vornehmlichen Sinn des Bildes).

Die Größen der Arbeiten 14/ und 15/ „Ohne Titel (Untitled)“ reichen von 40x30cm bis 160x120cm. Die Originale, die „Bildobjekte“, sind als Ink-Jet-Prints auf Fine-Art-Papier gedruckt, aufgezogen und erscheinen als „Bildobjekte“ mit einem weißen Rahmen und Museumsglas.

 

 

 

 

Werkgruppe 16/, 2016-2018+

 

 

Für die Erstellung der 3D-gedruckten Arbeiten 16/ habe ich die „Objektbehauptungen“ der vorherigen Werkgruppen (14/ und 15/) in eine physische Präsenz übertragen, „materialisiert“. Ich habe mir die assoziierten Gebilde als reale Objekte vorgestellt und mithilfe eines CAD-Programms im Computer nachempfunden und gezeichnet, ihnen eine Dimension und ein Material zugeordnet, und sie anschließend 3D-gedruckt. Der CAD-Prozess beinhaltet eine möglichst exakte Kopie der Ausgangsbilder, Linie für Linie; aber auch Reaktionen auf die Anforderungen des physikalischen Raums wie Statik, Schwerkraft, Mindestwandstärken, etc. „Mutationen“ der Ausgangsform sind in unterschiedlichen Ausprägungen im Übergang vom virtuellen in den physisch-körperlichen Raum ebenfalls möglich und angelegt.

Die Größen der „Objekte“, „Gebilde“ liegen zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt bei durchschnittlich ca. 25x20x15cm, als Material habe ich hier ein halbtransparentes Stereolithographie-Harz gewählt.

 

 

 

 

Werkgruppe 17/, 2016-2018+

 

 

Für die Erstellung dieser Arbeiten (Werkgruppe 17/) habe ich einige der 3D-gedruckten „Gebilde“ (16/) in einem klassischen Studioaufbau im „dokumentarischen“ Sinne fotografiert (das Foto als Dokument der Existenz der generierten Objekte). Die so erstellten Dateien werden in jeweils unterschiedlichen, im Bereich der Fotografie oder Produktdesign gebräuchlichen Verfahren als Ausdrucke/Abzüge gedruckt /ausbelichtet und in unterschiedlichen Größen und unter Verwendung von unterschiedlichen Präsentationstechniken produziert. Versioning: Ein bestimmtes Motiv (das fotografierte Gebilde vor einem bestimmten Hintergrund mit bestimmtem Licht und Blickwinkel) kann innerhalb der festgelegten Edition in unterschiedlichen Versionen auftreten (z.B. farbig-schwarz-weiß, unterschiedliche Größe, unterschiedliches Papier etc.).

Die Größen der Fotos, der „Bildobjekte“ reichen von 26,5x21cm bis 300x250cm, es kommen hier u.a. Ink-Jet-Fine-Art Drucke, A1A-Art-Prints, Lambda- und Light-Jet-Verfahren, Plattendirektdruck auf Dibond mit Autolack zum Einsatz. Auch die 3D-gedruckten „Gebilde“, die „Motive“ sind in unterschiedlichen Verfahren und Materialen, z.B. 3D-Sinterverfahren/Polyamide oder 3D-Sinterverfahren/Alumide hergestellt.

 

 

 

 

Werkgruppe 20/, 2017-2018+

 

 

Es erschien mir interessant, die generierten Gebilde nicht nur zu fotografieren, sondern sie auch weitergehend zu kontextualisieren; und diese neuen „Gegenstände/Sachverhalte“ in vorhandene, bereits existierende Situationen des physischen Erfahrungsraums zu implementieren.

Anfänglich geht es hierbei um den (jeweiligen) Ausstellungsraum im künstlerischen Kontext. Der reale Ausstellungsraum wird vermessen, anschließend wird mithilfe von in der Architektur gebräuchlichen Programmen ein maßstäblicher 3D-Entwurf am Computer erstellt, der die mit dem Raum verschmolzenen „Gebilde“ in potentiellen ortsspezifischen architektonischen Situationen abbildet. Diese maßstäblichen Entwürfe werden sowohl als 2D-Zeichnung (Plotter) als auch als 3D-gedruckte maßstäbliche Architekturmodelle und „reale“ Objekte realisiert und immer direkt ortsspezifisch, in der jeweiligen architektonischen Situation ausgestellt, wo sie wiederum fotografiert werden können (der Sprung aus dem Ausstellungsraum/Kunstkontext in den öffentlichen Raum ist Teil des Projekts und konzipiert, auch sind weitere „Kontextualisierungen“ über das Architektonische hinaus in Planung, Stand 2/2018).

 

 

 

 

Ich folge hierbei den Möglichkeiten des digitalen Feldes: alle von mir angewendeten technischen Arbeitsschritte basieren auf digitaler Technologie und sind durch diese verknüpft (das reicht von der fotografischen Aufnahme mit der Fotokamera über das Bildbearbeitungsprogramm, diverse CAD-Programme bis zum 3D-Druck mit verschiedensten Materialien wie z.B. Kunststoff oder Beton).

 

Stand 2/2018, Michael Reisch           

 

 

Inverse Photography

In his latest workgroups 8/, 14/ and 15/ Michael Reisch uses computer technology to deconstruct the ‘relationship’ between abstraction and representation in photography as it has historically been understood.

Created without a camera or even an existing object as a starting point, each image in the three workgroups is a purely digital construction. His process begins at the site that is usually end point of photographic production: a computer editing program, where he works with a limited black, white and grey palette incorporating all of the tonal values in the spectrum. Starting from pure unrepresentative fields of tones in workgroup 8/, in the later workgroups 14/ and 15/ Reisch uses a partly controlled, partly random, computer editing process to digitally 'reconstruct' these monochrome fields, stopping at the exact point at which the image begins to take on a material quality, when contours emerge as a trompe-l’oeil, suggesting ripples or folds, perhaps of metal or similar. It is important to note that references to anything real, such as fabric, have not been programmed into the computer software.

‘Since the early 1990s, Reisch has dedicated himself to questioning the relationship he calls the “constitutional core of photography”: that between the photograph and the “Real”. Rooted in the principles of Minimalism, his practice is associated with a tendency in contemporary photography known as New Formalism, based on the examination of photographic processes and techniques to invite consideration of what, how, and why, we might consider the medium to be today. This self-reflexivity is clear in these works, where Reisch’s architectonic impulse has shifted in focus away from the structures of the natural and built environment that formed the content of his earlier series, to look instead those constructed in-computer.

While the relationship between representation and abstraction has historically been treated as a linear one, moving from the latter to the former (for example, by focusing in on a detail to ‘abstract’ it from representational meaning), in 8/, 14/ and 15/ Reisch does the inverse: he starts from nothing and uses the tools available to him to work towards the precise moment, the ‘tipping point’ at which he identifies a simulacrum beginning to appear, a moment that is prompted his own memory and association. This is the opposite of the conventional digital photographic process, where material object is rendered into information data.

A crucial distinction for Reisch is that this tipping point does not mean that the acts of abstraction and representation are two distinct and separate processes. In these works he instead seeks to highlight that, in contrast to how they are commonly used, they are in essence two sides of the same coin. Both are contingent on the existence of the concrete object in the real world, whereas these digital constructs are contingent only upon the memory or association of something in the real world.This memory comes from Reisch’s own perception at a point during the making of the work, but also the memory that the viewer contributes to the encounter of looking at the photograph.

By stripping the works of their indexical function, giving them no basis in reality, Reisch seeks to show how the meaning of the photograph – including what we understand to be ‘abstract’ – is anchored in how we, as viewer, connect it to the material. His guiding principle to understanding this ”constitutional core” is semiotic theory, where the meaning of the work is understood to be the tripart product of the image (as sign), the ‘thing’ that it appears to depict (as object), and the viewer (as interpreter).

In his essay for the work, Roland Mönig writes how “strictly speaking, [these works] belong in the category of Concrete or Minimalist art”, for they are in themselves the manifestations of a concrete working process; that is, as opposed to an abstraction of something in the ‘real world’. For Reisch then, ever circumspect about his chosen medium, the works in this series are not the results of photographic methodology but self-contained units that represent a simulation of its essential comportments, in which process is, quite literally, framed as subject.'

From Emma Lewis Process as Subject: Abstract vs Concrete in the work of Michael Reisch [working title] 2014

 

Interview Bernd Stiegler - Michael Reisch

Bernd Stiegler: In your photographic work the transition to the abstract is a very deliberate and consequential one. How would you describe the shift from the "concrete" world to the one of digital data?

 

Michael Reisch: Conventionally, photography begins in the physical world, transforming existing situations and objects into a picture, into information, whereas I start from raw, neutral data and algorithms within a computer, such as in my group of works 15/. I generate graphic interferences that have no “real” origin, there is neither a photographic act or a scan or 3D modelling program involved nor anything else. I start from “nothing”, using partly random and partly controlled digital actions within the editing program. Nevertheless, in 15/ and 14/ every single element can be associated with photography; I use a wide tonal range, sharpness and blur, a conventional photo-editing program, photographic fine-art paper and framing associated with photography. Most of all though, I am interested in the “motif”. I work with certain digital interferences until “something” seems to appear, such as an object or a material constellation, and I work until a point of uncertainty is reached as to whether what is visible is abstract or representational. In fact, this “something”, this association, is due to an optical illusion, yet still it pretends to exist. In this sense the works in 15/ function structurally as traditional depictive photographs. In fact, I would say I simulate depictive photographic processes, but at their source the works don’t refer to the physical world. It’s a memory of concreteness rather than a depiction of something.

 

Bernd Stiegler: Is your choice to give up working with a camera another way of questioning photography as a medium?

 

Michael Reisch: It’s not an absolute decision, but I have worked “cameraless” since 2010, producing computer-generated pictures that have no reference to physical reality. An existing touchable world, as something that can be “photographed” and depicted, completely disappeared from my pictures, giving place to a digital reality. If you regard photography as being closely linked to physicality, mass, gravity etc., then I am very much working with an absence of that, and instead a feeling of disappearance and of dissolution. I guess this can be understood metaphorically; I have questions not only about the medium of photography, what it wants to represent under digital conditions, but at the same time about the experiential space in the changing environment regarding the digital. Photography can be a perfect indicator here, as it is traditionally very strongly linked to what we consider as real, but there is also a paradox in depictive photography more and more frequently having to deal with relevant immaterial phenomena instead of solid objects and visible, directly photographable phenomena.

 

Bernd Stiegler: Working with the computer as a medium of visual production does not necessarily mean leaving behind the visual tradition of photography in general. Is this formal tradition still important for your work?

 

Michael Reisch: Photography was traditionally designed to depict something physically existing, an analogue world through and through. And despite the medium becoming completely digital in technical terms, I see a lack of internalising its digital nature into the making, into production, beyond the existing analogue-constituted and digitally-continued ways of working. Beyond understanding the photographic picture as a fixed, depictive formal unit, I try to develop a sort of visual vocabulary, using the constructive nature that the computer and digital editing have brought into the medium, and, in my work, define photography as part of a much wider digital field, with equally valued representational, abstract and concrete potential.

 

Bernd Stiegler: Generative and concrete photography started in the 1960s. How would you situate or locate your own approach in relationship to this tradition? Did the so-called digital revolution change the very nature of photography?

 

Michael Reisch: One has to be very aware of the changed preconditions for photography in 2015. The movements of abstract and concrete photography started from an analogue concept of reality, and their ways of working, in some cases, could be understood as predicting the digital, which is amazing from today’s perspective. Now however, with the current conditions that digital has created, reality itself is already way more abstracted; which makes the starting point for contemporary approaches, including depictive ones of course, completely different and I try to explicitly internalise the digital in my way of working.

 

Regarding the digital field, the difference between representational, abstract and concrete seems to lose relevance and, as I see it, the three states seem to merge against the backdrop of the digital. Traditionally, photography transforms a representational world into data, the direction here being from the real towards the digital, which defines the digital as a function of concreteness and meaning; the outcomes, the transformations, can of course be abstract, but the source is always representational. But, following recent cultural changes, one could also understand this the other way round: the real as a function of the digital. Seeing it like this, the digital as first of all a neutral tool, electronic 0-1 coding generating equally valued abstract, concrete or representational outcomes, or any mix of these depending only on the particular 0-1 combination, there is, as a starting point, an independent structural and formal potential instead of a factual world, and for my work I don’t see a structural difference, under these digital preconditions, between working in an abstract or depictive way. Nevertheless, talking about aspects of photography, with the medium’s depictive aspects momentarily facing their own limitations regarding the virtual, concrete and abstract aspects of photography seem to be able to get a different grip on “reality”, going into the internal structure, the software, the algorithm, but they also seem to be able to picture, or to “represent”, an abstract digital reality, in a very photographic sense, against the backdrop of photography.

The re-evaluation of concrete and abstract photography, especially generative photography, is, in my eyes, mostly to do with the fact that its objective mathematical substructure has a clear parallel to the algorithmic substructure of the digital. Generative photography’s idea of emergence, of generating forms out of a mathematical context instead of depicting forms as part of a naturalistic program, predicted, in an amazing way, the relevance of the digital field with its constructive nature that, nowadays, is of such importance.  

In its origins, I don’t see my work as part of a tradition of concrete or generative photography, it developed out of a depictive photographic context and turned abstract/concrete over time. However, I've also never considered my approach exclusively depictive or abstract by nature, but rather as a back and forth with both as counterparts, a synthesis of these under changing cultural conditions and with generally delimited ideas of the abstract, the concrete and the representative.

Bernd Stiegler - Michael Reisch 10/2015