Should the Editor . . .

[jovo]

Looking at the Dover Editions' publication of all 559 illustrations and plates from Steiglitz's "Camera Work" it's interesting to note that he not only included his own photographs therein, but also, of course, dictated the content. To that end he not only wrote editorially, but also chose the contributors and other writers that nourished either his own opinions or furthered the vitality of the debates that concerned and interested him (many of which are still being thrummed one hundred years hence.).

I've often thought of Lenswork as a somewhat similar publication in that the editorial view is so singular and there is a parallel concern with extremely high quality reproduction (like no other current magazine I have ever seen!!). That Brooks advocates digital processes and publishes his own work from time to time is fine with me. (Although he promotes what he cares about, he does not damn the alternatives.) If it were okay for Steiglitz to do, then it's fine with me for Jensen to do as well. The precedent is long established!

 

[bill schwab]

Well Bill, I for one enjoy seeing the wide spectrum of photographic styles represented in LensWork. This is important, because I have no access (that I can hold in my hands) to the work of photographers who take their work seriously, unless I want to drive 1000 miles to the nearest photography gallery.

I understand this Murray and that is a good thing. I appreciate that. However, fine photography is a big pond and there are plenty of other places to dip my toes. I for one cannot bring myself to read a publication that carries its publisher and editor on its sleeve. I realize I have a "delete key" and in this case I have chosen to use it. As I said in another post in (there was a url link here which no longer exists), I "prefer to spend my money on publications that don't hide their criticism of my business behind a banner that claims support."

Bill

PS> Jovo, With respect to comparing Camerawork to Lenswork, in my opinion it is a case of apples to oranges.

 

[per volquartz]

Its very simple really...

Maureen and Brooks Jensen own the magazine.
They can publish whatever they want - digital or analog - say whatever they want and sell prints etc. to market the magazine - and to pay for the outragious printing costs that a magazine such as this costs to run on a sheet fed press.

Photographers have the optrion to buy or not to buy.

Why even argue this point?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Maureen and Brooks Jensen own the magazine.
They can publish whatever they want - digital or analog - say whatever they want and sell prints etc. to market the magazine - and to pay for the outragious printing costs that a magazine such as this costs to run on a sheet fed press.

Photographers have the optrion to buy or not to buy.

Why even argue this point?

Short & sweet & bang on!

Murray

 

[donbga]

I can't bring myself to read lenswork anymore, let alone buy it.

Bill

I find your position on Lens Work confusing and disappointing, especially since I like your work.

So much of this thread has so little to do with photography and the community we all share. Live and let live.

 

[bill schwab]

I find your position on Lens Work confusing and disappointing, especially since I like your work.

Thanks for the kind words on my work and I am sorry to confuse and disappoint Don. If in the least interested, my thoughts on Lenswork and its editorial positions are pretty well documented in a couple other threads that were beaten to death. It doesn't really matter anyway. The question was one of ethics and I am sorry to let my personal feelings get in the way. I think it is safe to say that my answer to the original question whether directed at Lenswork or a highly respected, neutrally edited magazine is a big NO.

Bill

 

[Troy Hamon]

A publication that reports news is responsible for maintaining neutrality in its reporting. Editorials, however, are opinion pieces and are not expected to conform to a 'neutrality' convention, though most editorial boards for quality newspapers exercise a great deal of thoughtful deliberation before choosing their positions.

A scientific publication is responsible for ensuring that opinions or conjecture follow logically from the facts, or data, that are relevant. They use a structured peer review process and strict conflict of interest guidelines to ensure this. I would assume this is what Monophoto is referring to in his example.

Pretty much any other publication can do anything they want. It is fairly unreasonable that we or anybody else would expect Lenswork to be devoid of editorial (which means opinion) content when it is neither branding itself as unbiased nor as scientific. The idea that anybody would publish a magazine that they are personally responsible for and that is their financial responsibility as well but need to maintain some aloof separation from is strange. It makes no sense. Peer-reviewed journals are not run by the finances of the editors.

Brooks' mission statement for Lenswork indicates that he is not interested in gear. However, he increasingly refers to gear in his opinion pieces as he tells us how current, generally digital, gear enables him to do more of what he wants. He's walking a fine line in those pieces, and to me they aren't what I'm interested in and they detract from the publication for me. But I will certainly defend his right to put whatever he wants in his magazine. I will also defend my right to choose whether to resubscribe. I subscribe for the simple reason that every year there are at least three portfolios worth the subscription price to me. Brooks' editorials have about the same success ratio with me, which isn't really so bad compared to other publications I read. And I love Bill Jay's column.

The related question of what advertising is appropriate is even less reasonable. It's advertising. The person(s) with the financial responsibility for the publication can choose what is advertised. If it is their own work, they are choosing to reduce revenue direct to the publication in hopes for revenues elsewhere. Their finances, their decision.

I think the bottom line is, if there is a better way to run a publication that meets a person's idea of how things ought to be, they should start it themselves. Go team. I've wondered about a peer-review photography journal that was all portfolios. Would it work, and if so how? I'm not clear how that would play out or if it is just a bad idea. At present, Lenswork, with an editorial board of two, is the closest thing to this.

 

[James Bleifus]

Somehow I don't think Brooks Jensen cares too much about that fact. At least you don't see Henry Rasmussen using B&W (America) to sel his work... or do you?

Bill

If you check some of the early issues of B&W you will see that Henry advertised his photographs of automobiles. I suspect that is was because he was short of advertising.

Cheers, James