Lee Shively said:
I can't take issue with your opinions - being yours, they are of course right for you. However, a few comments, if I may...
I love books--they are important to me.
Me, too. For me, though, it is the words they contain that interest me. Not being a smartass, I mean that prose transports me - the book becomes a conduit, not a thing in itself, but a doorway to another plane. A photograph printed in a book does not
take me away in that manner.
Of the books I love, photography and art books are my greatest loves. They are the only real means I have of seeing the art that interests me. I don't live in an area that has a lot of museums and art galleries and I'm not a big fan of visiting those large metropolitan areas that are the cultural centers.
I live in the sticks, but I do have occasional opportunities to visit bigger cities like NYC, Boston, DC, and so on. I can only say that seeing an Edward Hopper in a museum and seeing a copy in a book are not even close to one another - same for Yousuf Karsh, whose work I have been privleged to see in person at an exhibit. I just can't drag that value out of a photograph reproduced in a book.
I despise looking at photographs on computer screens and have no interest in photography galleries on the internet. Public libraries are okay but they don't compare to a personal library.
Hyperion to a Satyr, I say! A photograph in a book is to a gallery print as a computer screen is to a photograph in a book. Well, just one man's opinion.
Personally, I have no interest in books on cameras, procedures, techniques, etc., with very few exceptions. I can get all that information with a little research on websites such as APUG.
I enjoy some arcane and exotic information such as may have been lost from time to time. I have read with interest the various 'rediscoveries' that have become available to the online community that were common knowledge in the 1920's. Not that every page contains a pearl, but some do, and I find it fun to read and learn. So very little is new, even the arguments are recycled.
Books of photographs by photographers I admire are relatively cheap compared to actual photographs and books are pretty relatively available. Some of my favorite photographers produced their pictures mainly for the purpose of publishing them in books. Robert Frank, Paul Strand and Ralph Gibson all come to mind.
Fair enough.
I've been buying photographer's monographs and books of photography since I first got interested in the subject almost 35 years ago. It was a natural thing to do since I was a book-nut before becoming a photo-nut. Going through some of those older books is like rediscovering forgotten treasures.
That's how I feel re-reading a copy of a Kodakery magazine from 1929.
Also, I was lucky enough to gain my interest in photography at a time when there were lots of photographs printed in photography-based publications simply because they were good photographs, not because they were there to illustrate and article on a new product. So, books OF photographs are my interest.
I'm hip. I guess we just walk different paths, is all.