MR | OF CHOLOS, TRACES AND PRIVILEGES , by Rafael Doctor Roncero

ALMOST TWO HUNDRED YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE INVENTION OF PHOTOGRAPHY. The purpose of its creation was simple and essentially linked to facilitating the studies of painters specialized in portraits which were lavish in the large cities of old Europe. Possessing the image of a loved one, of a character or a self-portrait was a luxury reserved only for the bourgeoisie, aristocracy and ecclesiastical authorities. It was the time of carved small portraits or painted on camafeos. Owning a painting or sculpture representing a person was a privilege that defined the owner’s superior position regarding the rest who could not afford anything similar. It is not that the history of human representation only portrayed the rich and powerful; the poor have also appeared, however, playing a role they did not choose, used only to create scenes of decorative value. Let us think about the beggars portrayed by Murillo in the XVII century. Unbeknownst to them, the poor were portrayed to become part of a pintoresque image with no positive impact on them, turning them into mere ornamental items for the wealthy capable of self-amusement in a perverse aesthetic implied by the condition of the poor.

Because of optical and chemical research done at the beginning of the XIX century, it was possible to create a device capable of condensing light on a lens, one that could be projected over an even surface and finally fixing it over it. After many years of research, the process successfully proves the volatility of salts in relation to light.

In spite of the simplicity of the statement based on the reaction of the elements to the light observable in the everyday world, such invention occurred yet another result of the emerging society of Europe, which would extend throughout the rest of the world. We are in the first great stage of the Industrial Revolution and the introduction of capitalist paradigms as the only ideal of evolution. Such a growing society needed quick and useful tools to accomplish its worldwide invasion and thus photography became one of them. Moreover, that in spite of the discreet purpose of the invention, soon the world and power above all would understand its significance in everything that was evolving then.

The first photographs were experiments with places, landscapes and objects but soon the portrait- source of its purpose- positioned itself as the essential kind of this first large icon producer. Through the daguerreotype, in an early stage, and ambrotypes, ferrotypes, salt papers and albumins, the invention expanded over the western world becoming a sign of development and modernism.

Although at the beginning, access to photography was expensive and could only be afforded by the same people who early on would request their portraits in painting, briefly, technique developed thus reducing the price of the processes until accomplishing some democratization of its use. When this happens, photography is able to reach different society strata and the invention takes its true dimension. From now on not only the rich would enjoy the privilege of having an image of themselves or of their loved ones. With little money, a great number of people living in the cities would be able to own their own photograph just by going to the studio or soliciting from any of the large amounts of street photographers who began arriving from every corner of the world.

The process of democratization differs in each part of the world depending on the level of economic development and on its immersion into the capitalist process. Photography is a business and regarding profit-yielding businesses, the world always adjusts to whatever beliefs and cultural conditions necessary. Hence, photography invades everything and everybody in different ways and conventional ways begin to change. How was it possible that someone considered "a nobody" could now enjoy a privilege formerly reserved only for the wealthy? What was so important about being photographed that made everyone want to be in front of the camera? Was it a matter of lingering in time stemming from this invention or was there something else?
Certainly, there was much more. In front of the camera, the world appears more naked than ever before. There are no more interpretations, no different versions nor valid fantasies, but traces of light over people or things making up an image over an even base. And such traces meant many more things than expected at first. The trace was the same for everyone. The light falls just the same over anyone and does not have any kind of distinction. Everything was the same in view of photography; bishops did not have an aureole nor the kings were much taller nor did they show rays of light nor anybody occupied a space other than the one proportional to their bodies.

Photography came to impose some truth upon the fabrication on which the world based the idea of some dominating others with the purpose of structuring, distinguish, segregate and achieve control. The world was before the clear proof that every human being was equal and that there was no way of denying it. We are at the time where communist ideas stemmed from understanding a fair world, one in which photography proved to be a social fact. Revolutions arose and conquered but shortly betrayed their dreams turning them into nightmares. Photography was still there and evolved technically but its absolute trace of truth remained unquestionable.

In light of this differentiation, the dominant classes -who did not want to lose their privileges and by no means relinquish the invention- succeeded in adapting their supremacy in order to adjust photography for their own benefit. Thus, they began to paint photographs until they were felt like paintings or just kept on making their portraits using photography just as a tool to ease the task of reproducing a face. The world evolved and even if trains existed, they had first, second, third or fourth class seats.

Ricardo Ramón and Marina García Burgos have teamed up to form MR and have put in motion the exhibit "If there is no afterlife, the injustice toward the poor lingers perpetually", a photographic project with a very simple structure. The elements are perfectly defined and their compositions as well as their purposes are clear. In places where high society get together and mingle, they have placed a group of static cholos who are staring at us. They are together and hieratical as statues in spaces denied to them, places where they do not have any chance of belonging and where they are not invited. In these scenes, we feel the characters as cut out like a collage badly patched; it seems as if the same habitations in which they are posing wanted to reject them. We are bothered by their presence and, in spite of them doing nothing they remain staring straight at us. Are they asking us something? What are they doing? Whatever it is, something is sizzling. That is how we view it since their presence represents a great contradiction, which makes the artists´ intentions emerge straightforwardly.

It is the year 2008, in the midst of the future in times of science where humankind goes even further everyday. However, we can realize how the world has changed a little, at least in Peru. A society with a majority of cholo people makes use of these spaces where these people appear: privileged spaces reserved for a few who are looking for status symbols that can keep them as far as possible from the different ones who are usually those who have less but those who are more.

This the history of humankind whose worst chapter are recurrent and if it is herein reflected through this photographic series it is because that nowadays, today in Peru, far from developing towards a social justice that will allow for equality for everyone before the world, before the times we live in , it seems to travel towards a broader separation.

In view of photography, we all occupy the same space. We are all the same and before its trace, there is no possible reply. However, we feel the contrast of these scenes that will not stop sizzling. Something happens that contradicts this scientific statement. Perhaps our view is more affected than we actually believe and if there is any contrast it is because we feel some characters are in a place were they do not belong. The strategy of the game suggested by MR is perfectly outlined. We succumb to it because, though our reason tends to vanish the lie, internally we belong there even more so than we thought.

*Cholo: a racist term addressed to aboriginal Peruvian people.