dima
  • Witnesses

    "Seeing is believing", so the old saying announces, and it shows just how much prone we are to believing only in things we see. We might see them with our own eyes, or with someone else’s, but what matters, what authenticates an event, is that there is someone who has seen. In this way, proofs, witnesses and our own sight upon things guarantee us and assure us of the happening of an event. However, a photographic image can be the result of a production, a fake reality. At this point, can we still consider photography as a proof? And what about those events of which we possess no photographs, no "proofs"? Do they not occur? Aren't they real? Most definitely, photography gives room for speculation and confusion because it makes believable anything that is framed and photographed, and unbelievable anything that it isn’t.                                                                                                                                               Luca Nicolini © All rights reserved P. I. 02359710221