Jim,
Just to clarify, you are referring to Abba Richman's portfolio that appeared 30 issues ago in LensWork #54, Aug 2004. We pulled LensWork off the newsstands in March of 2008 -- the last newsstand issue was #75. We've now issued 10 issues since then, and fully 30 issues since the one with the alphabet portfolio to which you refer.
Although I can appreciate your comments about novelty versus quality, I assure you that novelty is never a plus in our selections. We tend to be somewhat traditional in our aesthetic choices. In fact, more often than not we are criticized for being too traditional and not novel enough -- not taking risks and not publishing more conceptual/post-modern aesthetic image like Aperture does, for example. But, we're not Aperture or Blind Spot or Afterimage. We're LensWork and like all publications, the selection of what we include is a reflection of our own personal bias. I've always said that is why it is always a good idea to subscribe to a range of publications that better represent a cross-section of contemporary photography. Besides, the anthology nature of LensWork is such that it is a given that not every portfolio will resonate with every reader. I choose to look at it as a sort of positive that you continued to subscribe for some 20 issues after the Richman portfolio that you didn't like. Thanks!
As to digital versus traditional methods, I think it's important to look at contemporary statistics. Simply said, far more photographers are shooting with digital cameras these days than with film, so it's perfectly understandable that our submissions reflect that change in the tools being used. We don't have a prejudice for or against any equipment or process. I've said this before, but it's worth restating -- we never look at what equipment is used in our selection process. We only learn whether a submission is analog or digital after we have selected someone for publication and start putting together their bio information. We are often surprised -- in both directions.
The photographers cameras and tools often do get discussed in my interviews with them, but typically because photographers want to discuss technology. It's hard to get folks to discuss motivations, creative impulses, the artmaking process -- I suspect because these deal with feelings and often unknown or unidentified processes deep in our creative souls. By contrast, it's always easy to state what equipment we use, what process we used, and what techniques led to the final artifacts in our portfolios. Our mission at LensWork is to try to focus on photography and the creative process and we discourage tech talk. Nonetheless, it does creep into conversation because sometimes it is just so darned relevant to the work. For example, in the recent Kim Kauffman portfolio, we had no idea that her images were created on a flatbed scanner without a camera anywhere near the process -- until that is, we interviewed her. There is no way we could not bring this up in the conversation! What was most interesting to me was her focus not on the digital aspects of the scanning process but rather on the moving/wrapping light source the scanner provided to create such unique illumination to the objects she scanned. Admittedly, there is no film involved in her process, but I thought her images were simply lovely.
Which brings to my belief that there has never been a better time to be a photographer and why I am so enthusiastic about our shared passion. If you want to make gum bichromate prints, you can. Tintypes, you can (ask Robb Kendrick). Platinum/palladium, you bet. Gelatin silver, sure. Lightjet, inkjet, and a world of digital possibilities, yup. (We've published work from photographers that use probably every process you can think of.) And this list of options available to us photographers can be expanded to PDFs, videos, gallery prints, folios, high-end art books, low-cost Blurb books, webpages, lovingly crafted one-off artist's books, all possible. Artmaking is all about the process of creating an artifact from one's creative vision, and what a fantastic world of choices we have that previous generations of photographers could never imagine. We should rejoice in the varieties available to us, even if our own personal work focuses on just one of the technologies that we prefer for our own work.
And doesn't it also make sense that with so many technology choices, with so many creative people making so many images, that some of them will be very different from our own work -- and, of course, might not be to our liking. Personally, I think this wide-ranging diversity is a good thing and reflects a fundamental health in photography today. When I started in photography, the magazines I could choose from were Popular Photography, Modern Photography, Shutterbug and the like. Aperture was almost the sole image-based publication, but had strayed far from the original Minor White publication of it's founding. Now look at the choices we have! I can count a couple dozen image-centric magazines off the top of my head! LensWork is just one choice among many! We are proud that we've connected with a readership who share our passion for one small corner of photograph's aesthetic horizons.
Sorry for being so long-winded about this, but I'm so enthusiastic about photography that it's hard to be brief!
Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing
