Jeremie’s words: PRISONERS ARE IN A COMMON ROOM WHERE DURING THE DAY THE PRISONERS CAN SPEND TIME, WATCHING TV, PLAYING GAMES OR CHATTING UNDER THE NARROW SURVEILLANCE OF THE GUARDS. BLACK STRIPES ARE MARKS MADE WITH A KITCHEN KNIFE DIRECTLY ON THE NEGATIVE. THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION HAS ASKED THAT CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE PHOTO BE ERASED IRREVERSIBLY. EACH PHOTO WAS DEVELOPED IN THE PRISON AND THEN SUBJECTED TO CENSORSHIP BY THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION. HERE, A PRISONERS MATE (EVEN IF HE AS SEEN FROM HIS BACK) HAS BEEN ERASED.
Jérémie, what gave you the idea to start your project Pāri mūriem?
I have an interest in the Baltic States in my work, so when I heard of the Rucka Artist Residency in Latvia, I decided to give it a try. In Cēsis, where the residency is based, I discovered that the city is home to the country’s only juvenile detention centre, and I had the idea to begin a project there in collaboration with the teenagers and young adults incarcerated.
Can you explain more about the participatory approach of your work? How long did you spend with the detainees altogether? Were most of them willing to be involved?
The core of the project was participatory based, with the intention to bring something in and out of the prison. Prior to my arrival, I sent a video presenting myself and the project to the detention centre. It was shown in the prison, so the detainees could decide if they wanted to be involved. Altogether there were 10 volunteers and I proposed to lead photo-workshops with them.
ArrayJeremie’s words: SPORT IS A POPULAR ACTIVITY. OFTEN THE YOUNG PRISONERS ARE CHALLENGING THE PRISON’S STAFF AND THEY HOLD COMPETITIONS. THE THREE PRISONERS THAT I HAD TO SCRATCH WHERE NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE PHOTO WORKSHOP.
I wanted these students to tell their own stories in pictures, within the restrictions of the prison and with their own vision. As long as they told something about themselves, they were effectively ‘free’. As for me, I shot their portraits in places of their choosing (of course it was limited in places they could go). I also completed a ‘landscape-portrait’ of a place that was dear – or at least familiar – to them outside the prison before their imprisonment.
As long as they told something about themselves, they were effectively ‘free’.
Over the course of a month, we met every weekend for a photo-workshop. Initially, I taught a few basics of photography so the students could understand how a camera works. Then I screened photographs and spoke about photography and storytelling; it was important that they understood that it isn’t necessary to have a technically perfect picture to convey an emotion.
Jeremie’s words: A 17-YEAR-OLD POSES SITTING ON AN AIRDUCT IN THE PRISON’S CANTEEN. THE GUARDS WARN ME, “HE ALWAYS TRIES TO TAMPER WITH WHATEVER HE HAS IN HIS HANDS”. HE IS DESCRIBED BY HIS COMRADES AS A CHILD ALWAYS PUSHING BOUNDARIES FURTHER…
Continued: OUTSIDE, HE ASKS ME TO TAKE A PICTURE AT THE TRAIN MUSEUM IN RIGA. LATER, WITHOUT EXPLANATION, HE CHANGES HIS MIND AND SENDS ME A LITTLE FURTHER TO MANGASALA ON THE BALTIC SEA SHORE. I FIND A SNOWY BEACH DOTTED WITH ICE CLOTS.
Within the screened pictures I also made sure that some photos were blurred, out of focus, etc. but iconic for what they tell. To pursue that goal and focus on thinking of a message rather than the technical aspect, they were handed with basic analog point-and-shot cameras and two black and white films.
During the two first weeks of the month they shots the pictures. After, we focused on how to edit a series with what we had produced. But mostly, I was struggling with the prison administration to get the pictures approved. The outcome of the whole project was to produce an exhibition inside the prison and another one outside of it to bring the prisoners’ stories to the Cēsis inhabitants – and eventually further.
ArrayJeremie’s words: YOUNG PRISONERS HAVING THEIR LUNCH IN THE CANTEEN. EACH HAVE THEIR OWN PLACE. THE SECURITY ASKED ME TO REMOVE THE DETAINEES NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE WORKSHOP BY ALTERING THE NEGATIVE WITH A KNIFE.
I would say that the 10 students were not equally involved. Some attended every workshop, while others came randomly; some asked questions, while others stayed silent; some used all of their 72 frames (2×36 films), and others were attending every session and hardly shot a full film. I believe that the most important thing for them was to escape their monotonous routine.
I believe that the most important thing for them was to escape their monotonous routine.
It also took some time for them to open up to me. For instance, during the workshop, they asked me to show them my own pictures rather than pictures by other photographers. This way, they could understand who I am and what I’m interested in, and the relations between us got a bit closer from here.
Jeremie’s words: THE PRISONERS ARE DIVIDED IN TWO BUILDINGS. ONE OF THEM FOR THE DETAINEES IN REMAND, THE OTHER FOR THE DETAINEES WHOSE SENTENCE WAS PRONOUNCED. BOTH BUILDINGS WERE RENOVATED IN 2011 THANKS TO NORWEGIAN FUNDS.
Jeremie’s words: SOME ARE WORRIED TO BE FREED AFTER A LONG STAY AT THE PRISON. TO PREPARE THEM, THEY ARE ACCOMPANIED BY A SOCIAL WORKER FOR A YEAR AFTER BEING FREED.
In your project statement, you mention your original intention was for the project to be a collaboration between you and the detainees, but that soon you came to realise that there was a third partner involved: the prison itself. Can you explain how you dealt with this? What kind of restrictions did you face; how did you overcome them and how did the project develop from there?
Indeed. After two weeks, I was told that the film could not get out of the prison before being checked by the security department of the Juvenile Detention Centre. It meant that they had to be developed behind the walls. I was not prepared for that. But since there were many surprises along the way, I had to cooperate. Once the films were developed, the frames had to be reviewed.
Together with the security department, we scanned the “suspicious” frames. At this stage, I was afraid that they would ask me to simply cut out the unwanted frames and discard them. So I asked if it was possible to erase what was not wanted on the frame by scratching the sensitive side of a film. They agreed and gave me a kitchen knife.
ArrayJeremie’s words: ONLY TWO BUILDINGS ARE OCCUPIED BY THE YOUNG PRISONERS. THEY ARE 39 PRISONERS FOR THE WHOLE LATVIA.
Things that weren’t permitted in the photographs included: the outer wall of the prison, the inmates who did not partake in the photo-project and the prison staff (mostly guards). Sometimes I tried to explain that a frame is blurred and therefore we didn’t have to alter it, but they wanted no argument – I had to scratch.
Sometimes I tried to explain that a frame is blurred and therefore we didn’t have to alter it, but they wanted no argument – I had to scratch.
It was not easy to alter all those pictures, as in the process I felt I was destroying the work we had made. It was only later that I realised the added value to the whole project; that ultimately, instead of hiding something, the administration revealed its identity through the scratched frames. When I realised this, the project suddenly opened my eyes to a deeper meaning. The scratches would resonate like a mark that the detainees will carry their whole life.
Jeremie’s words: PRISONERS WALK BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS OF THE PENITENTIARY CENTRE: A SCHOOL, A SPORTS HALL, A CHURCH, A CANTEEN AND THEIR CELLS. HERE THE SECURITY OF THE PRISON ASKED ME TO REMOVE SOME OF THE OUTER BARRIERS.
Jeremie’s words: DURING THE SOVIET ERA, WHILE LATVIA WAS PART OF THE USSR, THE PRISON HOLD ABOUT 300 INMATE. TODAY, 39 INMATES LIVE IN THE JAIL. BUT THE AREA REMAINED UNCHANGED. MOST OF THE AREA IS UNUSED. HERE IS THE FENCE FROM OUTSIDE. THE SECURITY DEPARTMENT OF THE PRISON ASKED ME TO DELETE FROM THE FRAME THE OUTER ENCLOSURE WALL BY ALTERING THE FRAME WITH A KNIFE.
What was your aim with this project? Is there anything you hope will resonate with viewers?
The main intention of the project was a kind of confrontation between the inside and the outside; between the local (them) and the foreigner (me) coming in with prejudices. Ultimately, I hope the viewer will question the prison system and what it means to be incarcerated at such a young age; is a closed environment a good place to build one’s own future? Will the kids be awarded a second chance once they’re out? Or does the prison exclude them from the best they can hope for?
I do not pretend to give answers here, and it would be very presumptuous to do so. But during the months spent with the inmates, many of those questions aroused me. The prison will surely stick with them for the rest of their lives. The guilt of the committed crime seemed already a burden for some… Will they really improve from there?
