images//julia hechtman words//jared kuzia

Can you talk a little bit about your new project I Wish, I Wish: where it was made, the general ideas, your experience making it, etc.?

I Wish, I Wish was shot in Iceland in June, 2009. I went on an artist residency and knew I wanted to make photographs, but the project developed organically once I was there. It began with “Harold and Maude.” I have wanted to use that film, in particular the scene with the characters at the demolition site, for some time. After that initial image, the rest came quite naturally, based on films that I brought with me to Iceland.

Iceland is the home of some of the world’s most beautiful landscapes. What draw, be it aesthetic or metaphysical, does Iceland have over other locations that could house the same potential? Essentially, why Iceland?

Iceland was a place that I have always wanted to visit. The landscape is varied, yet consistently spectacular. There is an immediacy or a kind of closeness to the natural world in Iceland that piqued my interest. Also, Iceland has no trees to speak of, which makes the horizon a clearer experience. When I traveled there I had just finished a yearlong project, “Irrationalism” which is a series of photographs of trees without a horizon, so this seemed a healthy departure.

What is the meaning of the title: I Wish, I Wish?

“I Wish, I Wish” is a Cat Stevens song. It is part of the soundtrack for Harold and Maude. But it also indicates longing and that is something that I wanted the show to incorporate.

Who are some artists who have had a strong influence on you in the past, and who are you looking at now?

Early on my influences were Robbert Flick, Rineke Dijkstra, and Gillian Wearing. More recently, Pierre Huyghe, Olafur Eliasson, and Linda Montano, but I look at everything. I try to see as many exhibitions as I can.

Lets get the camera question out of the way. At the talk, you spoke about your initial shots being made with a digital camera, and how they lacked a certain depth you were looking for. I remember you saying that they were too much about the superficial beauty of Iceland. Can you explain this depth that the images were lacking, and how switching to large format changed things for you?

I have a lot of different cameras that I use for my work, but my press camera is currently my favorite. This particular camera is easily transported and has a number of options for the format of the photographs. I bought it on ebay for $250 dollars…you can’t beat that. It takes amazing, sharp images, someone before me obviously loved and cared for this camera. One of the reasons I like using a large format camera is that it forces me to slow down and really look through the camera’s lens. I can see the effects of focus and depth of field projected onto the glass. It helps me to understand the ways in which the image is working, or isn’t working, and adjust accordingly. It also slows down my process enough for me to take in the surroundings more fully. I can’t just snap an image and move onto the next one.

Can you talk a little bit about how the movies you brought with you made the experience with the landscape a personal one? I’m also wondering if the scenes that you curated for inspiration have a direct relationship with your experience of Iceland.

I brought ten films with me to Iceland. I chose some of my favorite films, but also ones that feature the landscape as a main character in the movie. I watch movies that I love over and over again. They become familiar to me and get woven into my experiences. My process in Iceland was fairly organic, in that sometimes I would watch a film and be inspired to go out and make a photograph, as is the case in “Harold and Maude”, but other times I would be out in the environment of Iceland, and something would trigger a memory of a scene or a sensibility from a recently viewed film, as is the case in “Lost in Translation.”

I am interested in that idea of the films being woven into your experiences. Here you are out in the landscape, and your experience is being shaped by movies. Are you in any way interested in how our experience with the natural world is shaped and affected by things like media?

A majority of my encounters with the natural world have been mediated, either by photographs, television, films, or literature. I have the desire to be the one to intervene in order to direct the resulting experience.

I may see a recurring character in the work, although the identity seems a bit ambiguous. At any point in the process, did you have a narrative in mind?

While there is a recurring model in these photographs, this work does not intend to establish a single, linear narrative in the images. Each frame functions as a mid-point for a narrative of the viewer’s creation. The photographs are directed, but not finished narratives.

You spoke about how the figure within the landscape allows the viewer to go back and forth between the two, essentially allowing the viewer a break from one or the other. Why is this break important for the viewer to have? Also, I’m interested in how you spoke about the land (vs. the protagonist) being the hero to you in the films that inspired you. Is one more important than the other in your work? And what is the importance of the character’s relationship to the land?

I think rather than a break from landscape or figure, the addition of the figure in this particular landscape provides a certain grounding for the environment. The figure is a device, which enables the viewer to understand scale and relate to the majesty of the landscape on a personal level. In my work there is often a kind of divide where it is land vs. figure. It is a constant battle, but neither the land nor the figure dominates consistently. Let’s call it a draw.

You have worked with video in the past. In so many of the images, I can almost see the grass blowing in the wind, see the figures’ breath, and hear the sounds of the Icelandic landscape. Why not use video to enhance their atmospheric qualities? More importantly, why the camera? In what ways does it help this project where other mediums fall short?

I worked with video and still imagery in Iceland. For these photographs it felt important to present a static medium in my homage to the films. Each photograph presents a moment, which may lead to future moments, but does not necessitate a single narrative. While I am consciously trying to elicit a mood, I am not trying to fill in the blanks here. The blanks are the viewer’s experience of this work and of these moments. My videos do not quote or cite from films at all. In future installations of these photographs, however, I can imagine video being present and filling the stills with sound.

Do you feel that photography alone can sometimes fall short as a potential means of expression? Can you talk more about your reasons for wanting to combine it with other mediums?

I love photography, but sometimes my ideas aren’t photographic. I never set out to make a certain kind of work, but let my ideas push the work forward. Sometimes I need sound. Other times motion or a mark. It isn’t about the lack in any medium as much as what each one affords me.

What’s next?

I am currently making a series of self-portraits in photography and video. And I hope to travel to Japan in the near future to work on a project there, as well.

[For a more in depth look at Julia’s work, please check out JuliaHechtman.com.]