Filmmaker and art theorist Hito Steyerl[1] has pointed out that in the discourse on the documentary, two fronts have always collided: firstly, those who hold to the realistic reproduction of images by means of technical apparatus and who believe in the inherent truth in the documentary recording, i.e. who trust the camera as much as their own eyes; and secondly, those who take a constructivist position, on the premise that documentary images are produced and shaped by power relations.[2] Steyerl assumes that the documentary form is always interested in producing truth and speaks in this context of ‘documentality’.[3] The truth is a product which is made and constructed via documentary codes, e.g. by the use of black and white photos, interviews, statistics or correspondence. This ‘documentality’ works with authentication strategies, e.g. with art documentations portraying performances or interventions which illustrate certain effects in the social/political field and therefore create other, new realities. Steyerl makes the point that many artistic works adopt this style and act as if they are interested in the truth rather than examining causes. She distinguishes between two documentary forms which refer to historical events: the realistic form and the reflexive form. While the realistic form makes greater use of the myth of truth, the reflexive form runs the risk of generating an opportunistic, heightened realism. Both forms therefore require a deep awareness of fictionality and documentality. In view of all these variables it is important, says Steyerl, to find a critical position with respect to the truth constructed in images. She suggests examining what documentary images express rather than what they represent: “What is expressed in the hysterical blur of the CNN images [of the Iraq war] is the general ambiguity and uncertainty of a whole era … which is defined by more and more images on which less and less can be seen. Their constructed form portrays the realistic image of their circumstances.” Appealing directly to the producers of such images, Steyerl demands “an ethics of the documentary in art, from which more conclusions can be drawn”.[4] In a recently broadcast radio interview she supported her demand with the statement: “(…) but I believe that images are really capable of capturing moments of reality, though often not on the levels that we imagine. If that were not the case, then we documentarists could give up.”[5]
[1] A filmmaker and writer, Hito Steyerl lectures at the Centre for Cultural Studies of Goldsmiths College, University of London, and wrote her doctoral thesis on forms of the documentary in the field of art.
[2] Cf. Steyerl, Hito, „Documentary Uncertainty“, in: A Prior #15, 2007.
[3] Steyerl, Hito, „Documentarism as Politics of Truth“, in: http://www.eipcp.net 05/2003, last accessed 8.6.12.
[4] Translated from the German: „Was sich im hysterischen Gewackel des CNN-Bildes (Irakkrieg) ausdrückt, ist die generelle Intransparenz und Verunsicherung einer ganzen Epoche … die durch mehr und mehr Bilder definiert wird, auf denen weniger und weniger zu sehen ist. Die Form ihrer Konstruktion stellt das reale Abbild ihrer Bedingungen dar“… „eine Ethik des Dokumentarischen in der Kunst, aus der mehr Schlüsse gezogen werden können“, in: Steyerl, Hito, „Die Farbe der Wahrheit, Dokumentarismen im Kunstfeld“, Turia + Kant, Vienna 2008, p. 10-15. She is drawing here on Michel Foucault’s concept of ‘governmentality’ (power over the production of truth).
[5] Translated from the German: „(…) aber ich glaube, dass Bilder, wenn auch oft nicht auf den Ebenen, auf denen wir sie vermuten, wirklich in der Lage sein können, Momente der Realität festzuhalten. Wenn das nicht der Fall wäre, dann könnten wir Dokumentaristen es aufgeben“, Steyerl, Hito, in: http://www.br.de/radio/bayern2/import/audiovideo/artmix-gespraech232.html, 31.7.2009.