Benjamin Richter –
Let me begin with a general remark. We normally
perceive pictures by relying on what we have already
seen and experienced before, and on what we have
heard and remembered.
In other words: we are guided by those things which
we already know. It is the memory which is active.
And we are eager to collect notice and knowledge
in order to have something in mind.
But: is this the right way? When looking at pictures
not the memory, but the eye should be active.
There are pleasures which can only be reached by
using the eyes.
And now perhaps you ask why I do not give you the
opportunity to use your eyes, showing you here some
images. Why? –
Because I would like you to enjoy my pictures as what
they are. A reproduction on the monitor of a computer
is a fundamentally different thing. It's only the original
itself which says what it says, and this can only be
received by contemplating the original itself. Because
it's the original which has been realized by the artist,
and what he expresses enters solely into the work
under his hands. There are technical reasons why a
reproduction never can transmit this expression.
We have always deceived ourselves when we thought
that we see the object when looking at an image which
reproduces it. (This explains too, that what counts in
a figurative piece of art is not included in what it
represents; it is the picture itself which is the object.)
A reproduction has its sense when using it as a means
for remembering an image which has been studied
thoroughly at an earlier date. It may evoke what has
been experienced when standing in front of the original.
In any other situation reproduction simply means: wrong
format, untrue colours, alienated appearance. If it is the
image of a work of art which we have never seen before,
a reproduction can only produce a wrong idea of it. If I
don't know the work, I will not be able to learn what
it is just by watching a reproduction.
*
Please read on the "Pictures" page
what I add to these remarks.