Banalus objektas aštuntojo-devintojo dešimtmečių fotografijoje

LTMeno kūriniuose kartais vaizduojami „banalūs objektai“ - nereikšmingi, nedramatiški arba „niekingoms“ gyvenimo sritims priklausantys reiškiniai. Kasdienybė, masinė kultūra, apačios ir periferija yra tarsi niekaip nesusijusios su meno problematika. Banalūs objektai nieko aiškiai nepasako apie žmogui rūpimas idėjas, būtį, jausmų dramas ir t.t. Banalūs objektai šiais klausimais tyli, ir ta jų tyla kelia nerimą meno vertintojams, kurie banalybes iš pradžių užsipuola, vėliau objektai prakalbinami, nukalamos įvairios prasmės, o banalybė lieka paraštėse. Taip atsitiko ir 8-ojo - 9-ojo dešimtmečių Lietuvos fotografijos atveju.

ENLithuanian photography experienced radical changes at the beginning of the 80’s. One of them was a representation of banal objects. The first viewers were shocked by the familiarity and boredom of the images of the trivial Soviet environment. Why should the artists break the tradition of Lithuanian photography art by such anaesthetic imagery? And how would such preferences change the attitude towards tradition? The key to the solution of the problem his in an understanding of the banality. Originally, „banal“ was related to the feudal law and was meant for something trivial used by everyone. „Banal“ means general, unoriginal. „Banal“ is also „warn out“ and „gives nothing“. Thus, the notion is defined by the relationship between the subject and the object. The object itself is not banal, however, it is made to be such by wearing out its distinctiveness. It is generally believed that some immanent force of the reality makes things banal. Thus, to call something „banal“ is a judgement which depends on the point of view of a judging person. From this perspective, banality is viewed as ambiguous unseen at the same time. The banal object in photography is first of all an „unphotographed“ object. A „banal“ object does not meet certain requirements. They are not necessities, still, they belong to the field of aesthetics. Indistinctness of the Soviet reality was calling for the indifference. However, one is indifferent to those objects which are cared about by him regarding it as a part of his existence. To care about them would mean to grasp the reality of being here. The „banal“ object does not give the experience of the fulfilled existence. But it is not an unvaluable - the value of the banal object is in the eclipse, and it could be revealed by a special artistic language, respectively. What was the object in the tradition of the Lithuanian photography school?.By the 80’s Lithuanian photographers had used the imagery which reflected social, ethical, and aesthetical values of the time. Such titles as „Youth“, „Love“, „Friendship“ or „Suffering“ betray an ideological interpretation of the reality. The matters which did not confirm those ideas were not considered to be real in the Soviet ideology. The necessity was to mark them out in order to make the notions represented clearer. Banalities were just noise. Thus, the object of the traditional Lithuanian photography was merely the expression of verbal concepts, and it was not a visual world. Thus, the photographs became straight forward signs. A certain automatism has developed in reading and creating such signs. Moreover, the language itself is the source for banalism. The banality of an idealistic photography became even more conspicuous when a younger generation started to photograph trivial everyday objects, that is the banality itself. The young photographers focused their attentions on self-obvious and plain things were made not banal. On the other hand, they started to look straightforwardly at the abandoned Soviet surroundings clearing the vision of the imposed values in such a way. The photography of banal objects suggested an individualized attitude towards the reality as well as the way of avoiding prescribed truths. Thus, the banality of the object as well as of the photograph had disappeared for an instance. The banal object had filled the gap between the verbalized reality and „non-reality“. The banal object was transferred from the sphere of the „non-spoken“ to the sphere of „spoken“. But its visual language was ambiguous and full of „noise“. Verbal signs were replaced by visual signs. The uniqueness of the experience was expressed by the banal object.