Interview with Dennis Schnieber
Dennis was born and raised in asmall village in Brandenburg, and now lives and studies in Berlin. His works are created exclusively analog. That means on analogue film material. Like in the old times. For Dennis Schnieber, photograpy is a constant controversy between his eyes and the world that surrounds him.
In the tradition of the New Topographics movement his style is characterized by a certain restraint and a preference for the formal arrangement. He is eager to experiment and always on the lookout for what lies dormant between the obvious.
Analogue photography of the periphery
I’m from a small village in Brandenburg, have been living and studying in Berlin for a few years.
GM: What is your photographic style?
In my personal case, it is first and foremost the use of analogue footage with which I learned to photograph and of which did not release me to this day.
It’s hard for me to speak of a style, and I do not know if it matters at all.
Conceptual practices and the urge to think photography alternately
GM: Are there other artists who influence you in your seeing and creating? And if so, what is it that inspires you?
Conceptual practices and the urge to think photography alternately always inspires me because it breaks conventions and patterns and shows that so much is possible. Cristina de Middel, Philip-Lorca diCorcia and Sergey Bratkov could be mentioned here. As far as my own imagery is concerned, a lot of it leans on the representatives of the New Topographic Movement, the New Objectivity and contemporary developments.
A dispute between eye and world
GM: As we are touching the subject: What does minimal photography mean for you?
Minimal photography for me goes hand in hand with a certain way of perceiving the environment: the experimental and explorative look at what lies dormant between all the obviousness.
The picture that I will shoot next.
GM: Thanks for those insights Dennis! One last question: Are there some last works you want to share with us about your work?
Overall, I understand my work as a pure dispute between eye and world. We are always and everywhere surrounded by photographic distorted images and perversions of reality, and it is difficult to exclude ourselves from trying to produce an aesthetic value all the time. It has features of a fetish, but it also has something deeply comforting to cut out any fragments of great heterogeneity and sink into a sight of something. But I only speak for myself.
GM: Thank you.