Esteban Pastorino

There isn't a single work that represents my production. I'd rather refer to a series of them, since because of the way I produce, single photographs are not important, for they function as a whole. I'd have to mention the exhibition I did in Dabbah-Torrejón (2006). I think it was the one that best summed up the production process that I'd used. This exhibition was based on the connection between the photographic process (my field of action and intervention), the concept of chance, the dimensions represented (time and space) and its perception by the viewer. The exhibition consisted of a series of 360º stereoscopic photographs plus two installations containing stereoscopic photographs taken in different urban environments. All of them were made with cameras that I have specially designed and built, and that generated certain optical effects that couldn't be perceived with a naked eye. The objective of the exhibition was to show, question and think upon the limits of perception, not only natural, but technological. As a photographer, I continuously deal with the representation of space -forced to reduce it to two dimensions- and the capture of a certain limited time lapse. The exhibition was useful to me to reflect upon the researches made in order to try to expand such limits. I tried to provide the viewer with some clues or tools as to understand the process behing the images, process that, sometimes, can be very complex.

I don't think there's a way to understand or perceive my work, and I'm not talking about readings or interpretations. It is rewarding when someone finds certain signs or hints left there intentionally, and that allow him to recreate the processes or intentions that I had thought of when creating the work. It is enriching, at the same time, when someone interprets one's own work in a different way from the one I would've expected, providing me with visions from angles I never would've thought of. I think that, in order for this connection to come true, the viewer must have some level of commitment and dedicate the work a little bit of time and effort to achieve a better understanding. This may be a problem in most of the cases, since many people go in and out of exhibitions in rollerskates. I'd tell these people to focus only on the 360º photographs.

I don`t recognize myself as a member of any particular tradition, many of my influences are not related to the artistic field or are in the limits of art and science, like Fox Talbot, Arthur Batut, George Lawrence, Aedward Muybridge or Harold Edgerton. I consider myself a traditional photographer, and therefore most of my influences come from such a field. It’s difficult to think on 100% influences. Other artists have influenced me in a complex way, or their influence is not always evident; others have works that I admire although their influence may not be direct. To give some names of contemporary Argentine artists: Ballesteros, Iasparra, Macchi, Siquier, Gordín, Travnik, Joglar, Larrambebere, Ziccarello, Pombo, Di Girolamo, Provisorio Permanente, Vitali.

I cannot tell whether some exhibitions were relevant to me or relevant to Argentine art as a whole, or to other artists as well. It also happens that I've seen very few exhibitions in relation to the amount of exhibitions opening every week, and that's why I can only say which were the ones that influenced me the most: Gordín in the ICI (2001), "Fuegos de Artificio" (Fireworks), by Macchi, Zeitgeist, by Gabriel Valansi in the ICI, Dino Bruzzone in the Alliance Française (1997), "El plano del espejo", by Ignacio Iasparra in the photogallery of the TSM.