On Fernando’s Photograph
On Fernando’s Photograph
复制标题
关于费尔南多的照片
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
V. Bell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
V. Bell
这篇文章是关于一个年轻人费尔南多·布罗茨基（Fernando Brodsky）1979年在阿根廷被绑架后不久拍摄的惊人照片。Brodsky被拘留在布宜诺斯艾利斯臭名昭著的阿尔马达学校，至今下落不明。这张照片的底片被偷运出ESMA，这张照片成为1983年恢复民主后军方审判期间失踪者家属提交的一系列照片证据的一部分。本文试图了解照片的生命力、它所经历的不同过程、它加入和离开的档案，并提出这样的问题：“照片可以有什么样的生命力？”什么样的欲望？什么样的政治？”文章提出，我们可能会考虑这样的形象的作用“生物政治”，这是说，在通过试图在军事统治时期和过渡时期的民主治理人口建立的关系的背景下。费尔南多在照片中的重新出现是独裁统治后政治的一部分，其中要求“parición”回响。费尔南多是一个绝对的证人，他不说话，也不能说话，但他再次出现在法庭和艺术展览上。这篇文章考虑了照片作为证据的外观和它在艺术画廊中的再现之间的区别，认为它的“欲望”可以在每一个不同的想象。文章认为，虽然这张照片并没有逃脱档案库的追捕，但在提出如何归档的问题时，它引发了对生物政治现状的反思，以及人口之间生命和安全的不公平分配。这是一种当下的政治，而不是记忆的政治。
This article concerns the striking photograph of a young man, Fernando Brodsky, taken shortly after he was kidnapped in Argentina in 1979. Brodsky was detained in the notorious Escuela de la Armada (ESMA) in Buenos Aires, and remains disappeared. The negative of the photograph was smuggled out of ESMA and the image became part of a bundle of photographic evidence submitted by families of the disappeared during the trials of the military after the return to democracy in 1983. This article seeks to understand the vitality of the photograph, the different courses it takes, the archives it joins and leaves, asking: ‘What sort of life can the photograph have? What sort of desire? What sort of politics?’ The article proposes that we might consider the role of such images ‘biopolitically’, which is to say in the context of the relations established through the attempts to govern populations in times of military rule and in times of transitional democracy. The re-appearance of Fernando in the photograph is part of post-dictatorship politics in which the demand ‘aparición’ resounds. Fernando, an absolute witness who does not, who cannot, speak nevertheless re-appears in the law courts and in art exhibitions. The article considers the difference between the photograph’s appearance as evidence and its reappearance in the art galleries, arguing that its ‘desires’ can be imagined differently in each. The article argues that while the photograph does not escape archives tout court, in raising the question of how it should be filed, it prompts reflection on the biopolitical present, with its inequitable distribution of life and security among populations. This is a politics of the present, more than it is a politics of memory.