| Our images are more a reflection of an idea than a reflection of reality as it appears in front of the object. In these images we control and shape the reality according to our aesthetic and personal needs, avoiding, or filtering with a critical sense, the casual element that usually make photography an expression and a document of the contingent. The process we are going through is a reconstruction of reality where we redefine our space through a sort of mythopoeic act that intends to capture viewers’ senses before thoughts reach their minds. In most of the works, Luigi sets up the shoot, and takes pictures of Luca with a tripod; then Luca takes pictures of Luigi. Afterward, we assemble meticulously the various parts in the editing process. It’s just the two of us. |
|
Luigi & Luca
Luigi & Luca, Union, 2008. C-print, 100 x 70 cm. Courtesy of the artists.
Our images are more a reflection of an idea than a reflection of reality as it appears in front of the object. In these images we control and shape the reality according to our aesthetic and personal needs, avoiding, or filtering with a critical sense, the casual element that usually make photography an expression and a document of the contingent. The process we are going through is a reconstruction of reality where we redefine our space through a sort of mythopoeic act that intends to capture viewers’ senses before thoughts reach their minds.
In most of the works, Luigi sets up the shoot, and takes pictures of Luca with a tripod; then Luca takes pictures of Luigi. Afterward, we assemble meticulously the various parts in the editing process. It’s just the two of us. We don’t use a crew because our work intends to be an expression of our intimacy, which is, for the most part, spiritual. When we shoot, we do not meet each other as it’s shown in the image. Instead, we use digital photography and its manipulation devices as our instrument.
We often have problems for the explicit content of our images. Lately a French magazine was banned in Switzerland for publishing pictures of us pissing. In another incident, we were faced with police interdiction at the Mexican border because of our big prints, which were considered pornography, and as a result, were not allowed to enter the country. That happens a lot, and we strongly defend our work from this accusation—not because we have something against pornography; we don’t—but because it’s mystification; it’s a wrong way to categorize our images.
The main distinction is that pornography follows a centrifugal motion that condenses all the interaction with the viewer on a fulcrum that is, and always will be, the sexual act and the excitement. Our images, however, function with an opposite dynamic.
They follow a different motion that is centripetal. It may start on a sexual act, but then it goes further, broadening its fruition among emotions, myths, citations, the harmonic compositions, even along the elegance of the black-and-white, and through our personal universe, which is an imaginary place where we are the subjects and the “shaper.” The senses and the sexual desire of the body play a big part in our work because they represent our real intimacy. We consider our bodies as the field where we start a discussion and examine our approach to the world and its values. That’s why sex in our work is never ludic, funny, or ironic, as it is often presented in the last few years in art or fashion photography. Sex, for us, is damn serious; it’s almost political. All we do is trying to assert the weight of our bodies.
