Richter’s series definitely appears to be harmonious in that the photos are all in the same color scale and appear to have motion or blur to them, making it seem as though all of them could exist within the same moment. Though some are subjects and some are landscapes, they seem to take the viewer to an alternate world.
Richter is claiming in the interview clip that observing his art is no closer to the experience of reality than observing a photograph. At the heart of it, they are both just replications of what really happened, and each. is just intended to make the reader feel a piece of that reality. He is playing on the idea that we consider art more based in “realism” to be more “real,” and that photography is the most “realistic,” when in reality none of it is “real.” The only real part of any replication is the feeling it evokes, and Richter blurriness helps create a feeling of disconnect and fuzziness that would exist in a memory of the reality.
Part of the experience of Ulrike Meinhof’s life is that the public didn’t get to experience all of it. I think that we could interpret the blurriness of richter’s portraits to represent that missing information, but also to represent the complications of what she stood for in the collective conscience of German society. (Is that a jump?)