In an interview with kunst.licht, Sven Muentel talked about his work and the notion of truth in photography.

Tell us something about yourself.

My name is Sven Muentel, German, and almost 41 years old. I’m not a photographer.

That’s an interesting thing to say, considering the fact that you are showing photographs in a photo gallery.

Yeah, true (laughs). I’m not trying to be especially witty or something. It’s just that I don’t see myself as a photographer. I work in photography but I think that my intentions in working with the medium are different from what a photographer might want to achieve. If visual artist wasn’t such a vanilla expression, I guess you could call me that.

What are your intentions when making photographs?

At the moment my photographs are highly subjective. I’m not interested in depicting the world as it is. I don’t believe in the truth of photographs and rather use the medium to express things that are inside me. Inner landscapes, if you like.

What do you mean by the “truth of photographs”?

Photography is still widely believed to be an objective medium that shows the world as it is. But in fact it is the most widely abused medium of all, not even television is coming close (yet). I think that photography is not so much about truth or reality but about what people want to be true or real.

Can you elaborate a little, give me some examples?

Sure. The manipulation of photographs is almost as old as photography itself. From the very beginning ingenious people have thought of ways to manipulate their negatives. It all started innocent enough with portrait photographers trying to flatter their customers with “fine-tuned” photographs. Since then the manipulation of photographs has permeated all levels of every culture and society ever having taken photographs. And it always was and is popular with the rich and powerful. I’ve chosen some pictures that are of interest in China but these things have happened and do happen everywhere:

The Gang of Four were among those attending the funeral service for Chairman Mao in 1976

After the downfall of the "Gang" (which included Mao’s widow Jiang Qing) they were airbrushed out

But isn’t that more the exception that proves the rule? What about photo journalism and press photography?

Right, that is where the line should be drawn. I think that in the case of a journalistic context where one tries to document and witness something, image manipulation has no place and the image should be as raw as possible. But is this the truth? I think not. It is still just a crop taken from a three-dimensional ever flowing reality, a discontinued moment (think of the recent CNN photos from Tibet). And then there is also the context that gives a picture meaning but at the same time also distorts reality. Have you ever noticed how the perception of an image can change just by adding different subtitles? Or by removing them altogether? And anyway, it seems that the distinction between information and entertainment gets blurrier all the time. The advent of infotainment is something we all have to live with.

Let’s return to your photographs. Your recent series “Hong Kong I” and “Am Meer” are themselves bold examples of image manipulation.

That’s right. I often use digital post-processing to achieve the results I want. It really is a process I’m going through with these pictures. You just have to know when to stop. The computer is today what the dark room was only a few years ago. People have always experimented with dodging and burning, with different chemicals, different papers and film. Just think about Man Ray, how he has pushed photography to completely new heights.
Photographers and artists nowadays have tremendous possibilities to give shape to their individual vision and personally I think that this is a great development. Just go and read Ansel Adam’s “The Print” to get a feeling for how difficult it was in the past to achieve satisfying and (maybe even more important) consistent results. Of course with all these possibilities comes also a big responsibility. Just because I can do something does not mean that I should do it or that I am allowed to do it. Again I draw the line between art photography and documenting photography, between subjectivity and (apparent) objectivity.

The award-winning, and fabricated, photograph
"Qinhai-Tibet railway opening green passageway for wild animals"

A lot of people seem to frown upon the use of digital post-processing.

Yes, I know. I get this with the new series, especially with “Am Meer”. But frowning is good because it makes you think (laughs) and engages you. Nothing is worse than a picture that stirs no emotions whatsoever in you. All the software in the world can’t save you when you don’t have something to say in the first place. Then all you might get is just generic eye-popping effects and a hollow feeling. Digital image processing software is just a tool like the chemicals in a traditional dark room and you should never let the tools make the artistic decisions for you.
However it seems that for a lot of people the dark room with its mysterious smells, odd equipment and red light still conveys a special magic and atmosphere that the computer – because almost everyone has one and because it’s often more a nuisance than a revelation – can’t hold itself up against. But a tool is a tool. Let me and Evgeny Kissin play the same Grand Piano and you’ll immediately know what I mean (smiles).

What future projects are you thinking about?

At the moment I’m very interested in the perception and notion of time, how time flows and what it means. It’s again a very personal thing. When you’re already around for more than forty years these things start to become more important.

Thank you very much!