The "Jealousy Item," desire, which makes you want the work of others, to be that of your own, is one thing that students including Mathieu Bernard-Reymond are so often afraid of doing, producing something that has already been done before. Audiences, however, do not despise this form of "copying"- they actually encourage it, "people do not want artists to invent one new thing per second. They just want to enjoy the Artist's point of view on something. Spectators want to be presented with something they know or think they already know (Bernard-Reymond).1"

These works that so many students utilize and idolize within their own art are a contributing factor to each person's creative expansion and knowledge of historical art. A form of knowledge that only an education can provide an artist. Whether or not an artist should go to school is a controversial topic in which, differences of opinions have been suggested. Some feel that if promising artists go to school they are merely wasting their present' natural talent, and instead should go right into selling their pieces. On the other hand, many feel that going to school is a useful addition to any artist's career; although no amount of schooling can create a good artist out of an untalented individual. The vast array of technological, historical, and social skills you obtain while going to school would be availing in the end. Through an extended email interview I asked Mathieu Bernard-Reymond his opinion on this matter and other matters related to his career as a French photographer how living in Switzerland.

Vanessa Leech (VL): Does schooling have a great deal of influence within an artist's life, such as yourself or others and do you feel it was necessary for you to attend art school in order for you to thrive as an artist?

Mathieu Bernard-Reymond (MBR): I really think school becomes important if a student wants it to be. Good schools cannot help bad students, and being a good student has nothing to do with being gifted. To be a good student is to be able to take advantage of every teaching situation. For example, I could say that my first year in Vevey was almost entirely say that my first year in Vevey was almost entirely dedicated to "How can I take this stupid assignment and make something of it, something of my own.

Yes. I think school is useful, it offers the students an opportunity to develop quicker than they would on their own. For me, I think the most important thing I learnt in Vevey was to develop a personal vocabulary "style" that I was comfortable with. Secondly I learnt to realize that constraints trigger creativity rather than limit it. Lastly I learnt that the purpose of being an artist is to get answers.

Historical references learned during his school years were a major part in conforming Mathieu. It was by studying various artists such as; Minkkinen, Shore, Adams, Fontcuberta and Peach Robinson that Bernard-Reymond has such a strong, general understanding of art. Although these artists did educate and inform Bernard-Reymond it was the direct inspiration from photographers Marey and Muybridge and their idea of revealing the invisible to the human eye that had a direct impact on the objective of Bernard-Reymond's works. "This notion was a revolution is those days, like Freud discovered something invisible hidden in our minds, they discovered something invisible for our eyes." There is a strong connection between his work of a montage, which has lapsed this motion into one digital montage with that of Marey and Muybridge's early stop-motion photography. With that in mind I wanted to know if Bernard-Reymond prefers being represented: as a photographer or a digital artist or some form of hybrid artist and how he wants his productions described; by photographic terminology or by digital means2.

MBR: I must confess it doesn't really matter to me. It is really hard to define my work by defining what I do. I am surely a photographer, because I take pictures, and was leaded to what I do by learning from photographers for the biggest part. But also, I cannot be categorized as a pure photographer, because I use multiple means to put photography in danger. Putting photography in danger is, for example, questioning its ability to show "reality/truth", which a lot of people do know. Putting photography in danger is also putting its definitions into some kind of unstable state. Thus what I am doing is also putting myself into this kind of danger. It is a risky situation for an artist because at some point, you need to be able to define yourself, and you need to allow other people to define your own activity. But I think this blurry definition is more accurate both regarding my work and myself. Most of the time blurry definitions are closer to the truth than the very clear and straight ones. Don't you think?3.

Footnotes:
1 exerpt from interview with Vanessa Leech
2 interview with Christina Gray
3 interview with Christina Gray