Why I choose to write Imago
Image is part of us, since we are born. Our age, time, lives with the concept of image, which has allowed us to have a collective memory based on the same concept. The functionality of the images allows us to know reality that otherwise wouldn't have experienced. And that is perhaps the main point of my little argument, namely that the image conveys only a portion of the experience, yet it claims to be real. But it's a partial, as all the stories, and not objective, as all the points of view. But for decades has been assigned to this art form relatively young (about 170 years ago the first photo was made) an absolute function of truth.
Yet there was a time when there were no pictures, and our experience was limited to what we knew directly, or what we were told. The reproduction of reality, the paintings, did not claim to be real. But a photograph (before Photoshop) is different and carries within it a fact: that event, that person, that object actually existed in front of the lens of the camera. This visual revolution of mind, I believe, has dramatically changed our whole approach to life, making us image junkies, addicted to them and never satisfied. This is what happened by making the eye the prince of the senses, to the detriment of smell, touch, taste, hearing.
These are the reasons that led me to write The Imago, looking for a story that would allow me to analyze this mechanism: I tried to talk about us today, taking as inspiration the life of one of the most important photographers of the late '800: Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.