I see GTA: Reality as a project which introduces the already familiar "Duchamp effect" into the field of photography. Through the Duchamp effect and demystification of established, dogmatic definitions, concepts, forms, contents and values, it contemplates the essence of photography, wondering what actually photography is, and what defines it. This is done in such a way that it articulates the process of deconstruction itself into a new value. This gives birth to a factor through which the concept of photography is defined and affirmed on the basis of a completely artistic, conceptual principle, and not on the basis of technical formality, which is itself completely irrelevant to the concept of art. This is how the notion of art photography is mirrored from something real into something conceptual, which is in turn conceptually evident mostly in the fact that all the elements establishing the concept of art photography are merely conceptual. As a result we are dealing with photography which solely implies an idea about the photographer, the photographic equipment, the subject and about taking the photograph. Basically, I am speaking about photography which produces art already in its essence, because as such it is already established as an artistic principle.

The process described above is carried out through making reality face its transformation into the virtual. For this I use the popular computer game called Grand Theft Auto. In this game the player can use a photographic camera to capture what goes on around him. The fact that we recognize this virtual process of taking photographs as photographing, even though that is not what it is, inspired me to think about what it is that actually defines photography as a concept and in the context of human perception.

At the same time I emphasize that the general essence of photography is its ability to objectively capture and show reality. Even though photography can also lie, it is also true that it mostly does not lie about everything it shows. Whence it follows that in a speculative sense everything that shows a moment of reality can at least somewhat be compared to the traditional content concept of photography.

In relation to this I would like to stress the principle of computer games, which is among other things such that it enables the player to experience his own fantasies, as in the virtual he is given the opportunity to identify with roles, situations and challenges not accessible to him in the real world. Even though the experience happens on a virtual level, the player's needs, desires, pleasures and reactions are utterly real. As a result there is a certain reality factor in this virtual event produced by playing computer games. The reality factor is expressed in the player's need for this type of experience, as well as in the player's reactions to the experience of such an interaction. And not least in the consequences that arise. On the basis of that principle I call the GTA: Reality project a photographic project. We are talking about photographs of something that people who play computer games experience as something realistic and real enough to actually affect their lives. The same as the realistic, real world, captured by classical photography, affects their lives.

Another basic idea which I use to uphold the claim that these photographs can be defined as photographs is the simple fact that they show elements of violence, which we also witness in the real world. Violence is something real and every representation of violence as such consequently shows and contains some sort of reality factor, which means that in this aspect it is possible and legitimate to make a comparison with photography.

On the other hand I am wondering about whether reality in relation to the unreal always represents some sort of qualitative and relevant leap, because the question is, would people have a different attitude towards these images, if they were showing the real world, real blood, and not a computer game world? Would their feelings be different? Would they be capable of more compassion? And is the world we are living in, if seen from that point of view, really different from that of a computer game? Would a "realistic" photograph in this case truly be capable of some overachievement which would provoke a more intense reaction than the one that can be provoked by a virtual photograph? In this context, is there still any difference left? Is "realistic" photography even required to expose this issue?

By asking what photography actually is, we are also wondering what is reality.

"Our fundamental delusion today is not to believe in what is only a fiction, to take fiction too seriously. It's on the contrary not to take fictions seriously enough. You think it's just a game? It's reality. It's more real than it appears to you. For example people who play video games. They adopt a screen persona of a sadist, rapist, whatever. The idea is in reality I am a weak person so in order to supplement my real life weakness I adopt there a false image of a strong, sexually promiscuous person and so on and so on. But, so, this would be the naive reading. I want to appear stronger, more active because in real life I am a weak person. But what if we read it in the opposite way that this strong, brutal, rapist, whatever identity is my true self? In the sense that this is the psychic truth of myself. And that in real life because of social constraints and so on I am not able to inact it. So that precisely because I think it's only a game, it's only a persona, a self image I adopt in virtual space I can be there much more truthful. I can inact there an identity which is much closer to my true self. We need the excuse of a fiction to stage what we truly are."

Slavoj ZiZek, philosopher and psychoanalyst, The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, 2006