Something I rant on about sometimes is the idea that the "single iconic image" is effectively, largely, mostly-but-not-entirely (my position varies a little), dead as a form. That is a discussion for a different post.
As a book guy, though, I'm going to take a few lines to rationalize books as the Proper Format for photos, to see how that flies.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, video isn't a good home for still photos. By controlling the pacing, video/movie takes away from the viewer the ability to contemplate, or skim, pictures as they come. You're stuck with whatever the director thinks is the right thing. If the director wants to give you any real time to look at a picture, he or she is sure to Kens Burns the thing to death because it's motion right? Gotta have stuff moving around, or the primates will wander off!
I've argued that still photographs work better in sequences and collections. Each photo is essentially an instant, pulled out of the time stream and presented to us. It's hard to make a complete statement with that, and even if you do the viewer cannot help but wonder if it's an accident. This is different from a painting, in which (usually) it's all deliberate, and furthermore it's possible to construct the thing with whatever elements are necessary to make a complete statement.
Photographs also do extraordinarily well with accompanying information, such as captions, supporting text, that sort of thing. There may be other artifacts.
Enter the book, loosely considered (include pamphlets, magazines, flyers, a handful of prints stapled or bolted together, and so on). It retains the viewer-controlled pacing, permitting the contemplation and skimming so integral to our understanding of photographs. It permits, indeed it encourages, sequences of pictures. It allows supporting text in whatever shape and quantity you like.
I am abruptly convinced that the "single iconic image" is a stale holdover from the days of painting. This was explicit in the early days with the Pictorialists consciously copying the tropes of Victorian painting (allegorical pictures with tons of composited elements literally telling a story, hand-working, impressionistic camera usage, etc and so on). It was carried onwards to the present day under the banner of the Fine Print. The Ultimate Goal is a single large image which you hang on the wall like a painting; the single image that is self-contained.
This is absurdly limiting, at best, and I think one can argue (and I intend to!) that it's a poor fit to the medium.
Books are, in fact, the right end result for photographs.
I respectfully disagree: Books may be the right end result for some photographs, but not for all.
ReplyDeleteAnd this has nothing to do with context, narrative, sequencing, pacing, or what have you, but strictly image quality.
In both my opinion and experience, no offset-printed photo in a book can even begin to compare to the quality of an original photo printed by whatever means on a proper piece of photographic paper.
While viewing photos in books can be a minimally satisfying way to consume them, just as listening to .mp3s can be a minimally satisfying way to consume music, they both pale by comparison to the originals they attempt to reproduce. This is especially true for the pt/pd prints that I both love and (on a very limited scale) collect.
Mind you, I also love photo books (and own several hundred of them), but IMO, as enjoyable as they are, they're not a substitute for a "real" photograph.
And this is precisely the point of disagreement!
DeleteI own fine prints, I've made a jolly good try at making some, and to be honest I simply don't get it. They're very nice, and I do see and appreciate the technical differences. The blacks, the detail, the buttery tonality, etc etc.
I just don't see that it makes any actual difference to the picture. It simply doesn't, for me (except every now and then, see below). I like what's in the picture, and I simply don't care about the fat content of the tonality, or the details that register only when I shove my nose up against the glass.
Furthermore, and this is surely where things begin to get iffy, I think this is true for practically everyone else as well, almost all the time. It is received wisdom that you need all the technical foofaw to get the point across, and for St Ansel it happens to actually be true -- but not because his pictures are great when the blacks are dark, it turns out that they're awful muddled messes when the blacks are rendered grey.
Most really good pictures aren't like that, though. Most really good pictures survive the horrors of offset printing quite well!
However, I agree that we're in the land of your opinion versus mine, and I know perfectly well that you have lots of excellent company in your camp.
Yes, as with so many topics having to do with "art," there is no right or wrong position on this issue (as you noted, it's also very much a my opinion v. your opinion thing.)
DeleteIn view of this, it will be very interesting indeed to learn how you react to the box of my prints that is now circulating.
I like to believe their technical quality adds to the viewing experience, but perhaps not and I'm just fooling myself?
Unfortunately, rationalization is a _very_ powerful drug ... lol.
I believe that for a given piece of work, there is a level of "quality" (or better a set of properties) which suits that work and the intent and capabilities of the artist best. This doesn't necessarily mean quality like in "high level of detail" and "rich shadows"; consider e.g. the work of Daido Moriyama, to which those properties would actually be detrimental. The cultural background and the taste of the artist certainly plays a role.
DeleteAs far as books are concerned, I plan to create an artist book using double sided inkjet paper (Canson Rag Photographique Duo 220gsm) bound in a clamp binder (found a rather stylish one in a local art supplies store). It won't be cheap, however. I expect about 150€ production cost per unit. If this doesn't work out, there is still the possibility to glue inkjet prints into a larger photo album.
By the way, I am genuinely looking forward to seeing your prints! I do see and appreciate all those fine details and whatnot, and I promise to do my best to step back and see if, for your pictures, these details really do "matter" to my experience of the pictures themselves.
DeleteI've eaten some crow in the past, it's not all that bad if you use enough ketchup.
By the way, I am genuinely looking forward to seeing your prints! I do see and appreciate all those fine details and whatnot, and I promise to do my best to step back and see if, for your pictures, these details really do "matter" to my experience of the pictures themselves.
DeleteI've eaten some crow in the past, it's not all that bad if you use enough ketchup.