The Photobook Thread

[photobook44]

I’ve looked at these photographs from "Natur" too, and honestly, they feel a bit like what you might get if a child wandered through the forest with a camera. I say that because in my opinion even a curious 10 year old might capture something more compelling. Sorry if this comes across as harsh. I just believe that if I can enthusiastically share what I love about certain books, I should also be able to share my honest opinion when something doesn’t resonate with me at all.

Yes. I agree. It‘s also not my cup of tea. But you mentioned Helga Paris. I like her work very much. Great portraits. Didn‘t know her work until recently. She was not very well known in the GDR. They didn‘‘t want her to exhibit because she was too honest obviously and they didn‘t want her to show these pictures because of that.

 

[nikos79]

Ah... the old "even a child could do it"... hadn't heard, or read, that one in a while...

I didn't mean to sound dismissive, for sure these photos represent a great technical skill and intellectual concept that a child of course could never achieve.

What I meant to say is by looking at compositions from that book sometimes I don't really understand what attracted the photographer to even lift the camera.

These images look to me uninspiring or lacking in curiosity. I just think a child might capture something more playful or surprising.

 

[nikos79]

Yes. I agree. It‘s also not my cup of tea. But you mentioned Helga Paris. I like her work very much. Great portraits. Didn‘t know her work until recently. She was not very well known in the GDR. They didn‘‘t want her to exhibit because she was too honest obviously and they didn‘t want her to show these pictures because of that.

Isn't there a big retrospective of her work currently in Berlin?

 

[photobook44]

Isn't there a big retrospective of her work currently in Berlin?

Yes. You are right. Unfortunately Berlin is too far away for me.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

These images look to me... lacking in curiosity.

No they're not. They are photographs of what he was curious about. That you are not curious about the same things he is, or wouldn't have been curious about the things he was curious at the moments he shot the photographs, all that is OK, but totally irrelevant. Looking at photographs is not about your curiosity, or an imaginary child's curiosity. Someone looked at something and thought that thing interesting enough to photograph it, and looking at photographs is in part trying to understand why, in the sense of becoming the eye, and the sensibility, of the one who took the photo. Looking at photographs is abandoning yourself — your self — to that.

I will also add that there is great craft behind the making of these photos, as anybody who spends enough time in the darkroom would tell you. There are in these photos very subtle plays of light that seem to be beautifully translated.

 

[nikos79]

No they're not. They are photographs of what he was curious about. That you are not curious about the same things he is, or wouldn't have been curious about the things he was curious at the moments he shot the photographs, all that is OK, but totally irrelevant. Looking at photographs is not about your curiosity, or an imaginary child's curiosity. Someone looked at something and thought that thing interesting enough to photograph it, and looking at photographs is in part trying to understand why, in the sense of becoming the eye, and the sensibility, of the one who took the photo. Looking at photographs is abandoning yourself — your self — to that.

I will also add that there is great craft behind the making of these photos, as anybody who spends enough time in the darkroom would tell you. There are in these photos very subtle plays of light that seem to be beautifully translated.

Can I ask you something a bit more personal?

I’ve been in this forum for a while now, and we’ve exchanged quite a lot with each other. One thing I’ve noticed, and I say this with genuine interest, is that I’ve never seen you be dismissive or critical of any photographer here.

Do you feel that there is such a thing as bad photography, or do you believe that every photograph contains something worth discovering, even if it doesn’t immediately resonate?

I’m asking because your position reminds me of something Bernard Plossu (whom I really like) once said: "I cannot say anything bad about any photography. I just love photography, and for me all photographs are interesting".

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that view. On the contrary, I find it quite generous. I’m simply curious and trying to understand your perspective a bit better.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Can I ask you something a bit more personal?

I’ve been in this forum for a while now, and we’ve exchanged quite a lot with each other. One thing I’ve noticed, and I say this with genuine interest, is that I’ve never seen you be dismissive or critical of any photographer here.

Do you feel that there is such a thing as bad photography, or do you believe that every photograph contains something worth discovering, even if it doesn’t immediately resonate?

I’m asking because your position reminds me of something Bernard Plossu (whom I really like) once said: "I cannot say anything bad about any photography. I just love photography, and for me all photographs are interesting".

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that view. On the contrary, I find it quite generous. I’m simply curious and trying to understand your perspective a bit better.

Short answer is I'm certainly close to Plossu's point of view.

Long answer is, of course, more complicated, but more the subject of a private conversation, as how I view photography is unrelated to this thread, and would be of little interest to most people in it.

Only thing that I'll add, in relation to this thread, is that the more photobooks I own (or borrow from the library ), to more open to the various possibilities of photography I become.

And the more I photograph and spend time in the darkroom printing, the more I admire and appreciated the work of those who have mastered both crafts, whether or not they are interested in photographing, or printing, the same things I am.

 

[nikos79]

Short answer is I'm certainly close to Plossu's point of view.

Long answer is, of course, more complicated, but more the subject of a private conversation, as how I view photography is unrelated to this thread, and would be of little interest to most people in it.

Only thing that I'll add, in relation to this thread, is that the more photobooks I own (or borrow from the library ), to more open to the various possibilities of photography I become.

And the more I photograph and spend time in the darkroom printing, the more I admire and appreciated the work of those who have mastered both crafts, whether or not they are interested in photographing, or printing, the same things I am.

Thanks so much for your reply, it really helps me see your approach a bit more clearly.

About Plossu’s quote, it’s real but anecdotal: he told it to my photography teacher (they’re good friends) when talking about other photographers. Bernard just couldn’t say anything bad about anyone his approach to photography was pure enthusiasm and love for the medium (which you can actually see from his photos and way of life too).

I’m looking forward to more private chats like this, and I really appreciate you sharing your perspective.

it’s actually encouraging to think a bit more openly about photography.

 

[nikos79]

And speaking about Plossu his book Western Colors is 50% sale

Bernard Plossu – Western Colors / €25.00

Thames & Hudson 2016. Contributors: Francis Hodgson, Max Evans With a text by Francis Hodgson. 27.6 x 22.7 cm. 144 p. with 88 col. ills. Hardcover. English. ISBN 978-0-500-54467-9.

en.artbooksonline.eu

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I used to not like certain photographers and photographs when I was young. These days I find that there are things I like and things I might not like yet.

Robert Adams is is a good example of a photographer that I like now.

 

[photobook44]

No they're not. They are photographs of what he was curious about. That you are not curious about the same things he is, or wouldn't have been curious about the things he was curious at the moments he shot the photographs, all that is OK, but totally irrelevant. Looking at photographs is not about your curiosity, or an imaginary child's curiosity. Someone looked at something and thought that thing interesting enough to photograph it, and looking at photographs is in part trying to understand why, in the sense of becoming the eye, and the sensibility, of the one who took the photo. Looking at photographs is abandoning yourself — your self — to that.

I will also add that there is great craft behind the making of these photos, as anybody who spends enough time in the darkroom would tell you. There are in these photos very subtle plays of light that seem to be beautifully translated.

I understand your point. And I try always to understand others work and also to appreciate it. And there is noch such thing as „good art“ or „bad art“. Totally agree. But for me personally it‘s not irrelevant which photographs impress me and which not so much. It‘s simply because I have to make choices. Which photobooks I should buy or borrow, which exhibitions I should attend. Maybe I should have a look at work that I don‘t understand immediately more often. should try harder to understand. Good point. Thanks a lot for your thoughts.

 

[tcolgate]

Ah... the old "even a child could do it"... hadn't heard, or read, that one in a while...

One of my favourite quotes is from a great card magician call Rene Lavand "any 7 year old with 50 years to practice can do it" He goes on to mention that for the first 6 years he practiced with 2 hands, and for the rest with 1, and advises to stick to 2 (he lost an arm as a child, in a car accident)

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I understand your point. And I try always to understand others work and also to appreciate it. And there is noch such thing as „good art“ or „bad art“. Totally agree. But for me personally it‘s not irrelevant which photographs impress me and which not so much. It‘s simply because I have to make choices. Which photobooks I should buy or borrow, which exhibitions I should attend. Maybe I should have a look at work that I don‘t understand immediately more often. should try harder to understand. Good point. Thanks a lot for your thoughts.

What I like about books such as Natur is that they attempt to recreate the feeling of just slowly walking around and looking — not looking for anything, or looking to find something to photograph; just looking. And it's through that awareness that things catch your eyes: the way the light hits a group of leaves and make them almost transparent, a bird's nest, a particular shape that reminds you of something but you can't quite figure out what, a sudden change of light because a cloud just passed in front of the sun, a broken fence (and you wonder when it was made, and if ever it will be fixed again), part of a dead tree trunk, a group of rocks and some dirt, random weeds growing by the sidewalk.

And a cow. I don't know about you, but I love looking at cows. Whenever I wander in the country side and walk near a farm, I stop to look at them. I always have — and this is why I disagreed so strongly with @nikos79 : cows are fascinating to kids, only adults find them boring and uninteresting. Children stop and look, because a cow forces you to stop. They tell you something about time, and they bring you back to the time when you had nothing else to do, nothing urgent to accomplish, but to stop and just look at a cow being there.

I love that there is that picture of the cow in Natur. I love that he took that photograph. Taking a simple photograph of a cow — and enjoying doing so — is proving yourself you still have that kind of innocence in you.

So it's not about being impressed by a photograph, or a group of photographs. It's photography telling me something about the world I live in, about engaging with the world I live in (and taking the time to do so), through the eyes of a photographer engaged with the world he lives in.

You get the same feeling with Robert Adams or John Gossage. But Michael Schmidt is different, in that he's more about details than making you feel you are in the landscape itself.

And yes. I'm probably going to get that book .

 

[snusmumriken]

I just think a child might capture something more playful or surprising.

I’ve done that experiment, by giving my kids disposable cameras. You just get a lot of photos of knees and the inside of the dog’s mouth.

 

[Arthurwg]

I also like Hido, and did get his latest book.

I ran into him years ago and asked if I could buy a print from him. He was very miffed that I was trying to circumvent his gallery and refused.

 

[Arthurwg]

I’ve looked at these photographs from "Natur" too, and honestly, they feel a bit like what you might get if a child wandered through the forest with a camera. I say that because in my opinion even a curious 10 year old might capture something more compelling.

I haven't seen these pictures but my guess is that they are purposely not "compelling", which represents a certain aesthetic ethos.

 

[MTGseattle]

Interesting last couple of pages.

I watched the flip through of "Natur" as well, and I too was left wondering a few things. I really enjoy some of the images (the opening one especially), and some others had me wondering about the overall edit. My biggest curiosity was from some of the pairs which are clearly subtle reframes and/or slightly different exposures or time of exposure at the scene. I am curious regarding the photographer's intent here. I think almost any of us would study the 2 and simply include the "best" of the pair, so why include both?

That said, I watched what I think is the newest video Alec Soth has released, and I was unaware of the Phaidon titles related to photobook history that Martin Parr was involved with.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

My biggest curiosity was from some of the pairs which are clearly subtle reframes and/or slightly different exposures or time of exposure at the scene. I am curious regarding the photographer's intent here. I think almost any of us would study the 2 and simply include the "best" of the pair, so why include both?

Imagine you're on a walk, you see a tree, you particularly like how the light fall on it, so you take a photo. Coming back, you see that tree again, the light has change, and you also particularly like how it falls on it, so again you take the photo. Doing that, you are no longer photographing a moment in time, but the passage of time, and how it has many ways to transform us. That is your intent, so you include both photos in your book, as there is no "best" of the two.

You could even imagine yourself just sitting in front of that tree one day, from dawn to dusk, and photographing it every hour, or every half hour, or every time the light changes in a way that speaks to you — it would be the same tree yet never the same —, and then making an entire book only of these photos. (Since I made the suggestion, of course I'd have no choice but to buy it ! )

Having two of the same, yet different, is a great way to draw the viewer in. Viewer has no choice but to stop and look, even if just for differences, not only in the surface of the photo itself, but also in feeling. Viewer becomes more attentive, and that attention is then kept on single images.

I may be wrong — memory fails me — but I think Italian photographer Luigi Ghirri did this a lot.

 

[nikos79]

Imagine you're on a walk, you see a tree, you particularly like how the light fall on it, so you take a photo. Coming back, you see that tree again, the light has change, and you also particularly like how it falls on it, so again you take the photo. Doing that, you are no longer photographing a moment in time, but the passage of time, and how it has many ways to transform us. That is your intent, so you include both photos in your book, as there is no "best" of the two.

You could even imagine yourself just sitting in front of that tree one day, from dawn to dusk, and photographing it every hour, or every half hour, or every time the light changes in a way that speaks to you — it would be the same tree yet never the same —, and then making an entire book only of these photos. (Since I made the suggestion, of course I'd have no choice but to buy it ! )

Having two of the same, yet different, is a great way to draw the viewer in. Viewer has no choice but to stop and look, even if just for differences, not only in the surface of the photo itself, but also in feeling. Viewer becomes more attentive, and that attention is then kept on single images.

I may be wrong — memory fails me — but I think Italian photographer Luigi Ghirri did this a lot.

Yes he did it photographing the globe or something like that. It is from this book

 

[MTGseattle]

Imagine you're on a walk, you see a tree, you particularly like how the light fall on it, so you take a photo. Coming back, you see that tree again, the light has change, and you also particularly like how it falls on it, so again you take the photo. Doing that, you are no longer photographing a moment in time, but the passage of time, and how it has many ways to transform us. That is your intent, so you include both photos in your book, as there is no "best" of the two.

You could even imagine yourself just sitting in front of that tree one day, from dawn to dusk, and photographing it every hour, or every half hour, or every time the light changes in a way that speaks to you — it would be the same tree yet never the same —, and then making an entire book only of these photos. (Since I made the suggestion, of course I'd have no choice but to buy it ! )

Having two of the same, yet different, is a great way to draw the viewer in. Viewer has no choice but to stop and look, even if just for differences, not only in the surface of the photo itself, but also in feeling. Viewer becomes more attentive, and that attention is then kept on single images.

I may be wrong — memory fails me — but I think Italian photographer Luigi Ghirri did this a lot.

That’s a pretty good reply.

Didn’t Joel Myerowitz photograph from the same location 1 per day for a year or something.?

 

[Pieter12]

A bit of a detour here. I want to buy the Jeff Wall catalog from Toronto. They don't specify shipping to the US, but in case that isn't possible, do any of the Canadians here know what it might cost to send a book from Canada to the US? I have a brother in Montreal who can do it for me.

 

[MattKing]

We don't have a "book" rate for Canada Post, so the cost to send it using Canada Post depends on the size of the package.
This link helps you determine the options and shipping costs: https://www.canadapost-postescanada.ca/cpc/en/personal/send-internationally.page
I have no idea what additional costs may now be due as a result of the current situation with "tariffs".
It might depend on where the catalogue - note Canadian spelling - is printed.

 

[nikos79]

A new book I just bought yesterday

 

[MTGseattle]

I found a copy of this on my lunch break yesterday. I had a gift card too, so things worked out well.

The Chinese Photobook, From the 1900s to the Present Mid-Sized Edition by Parr, Martin: New (2016) | Lakeside Books

ISBN: 9781597113755 - Hardcover - Aperture - 2016 - Condition: New - Brand New! Not Overstocks or Low Quality Book Club Editions! Direct From the Publisher! We're not a giant, faceless warehouse organization! We're a small town bookstore that loves books and loves it's customers! Buy from...

www.abebooks.com

The only unfortunate thing is it's size; 13x11.5"

 

[tcolgate]

I found a copy of this on my lunch break yesterday. I had a gift card too, so things worked out well.

The Chinese Photobook, From the 1900s to the Present Mid-Sized Edition by Parr, Martin: New (2016) | Lakeside Books

ISBN: 9781597113755 - Hardcover - Aperture - 2016 - Condition: New - Brand New! Not Overstocks or Low Quality Book Club Editions! Direct From the Publisher! We're not a giant, faceless warehouse organization! We're a small town bookstore that loves books and loves it's customers! Buy from...

www.abebooks.com

The only unfortunate thing is it's size; 13x11.5"

Nice! That one got a name check on Alex Soth's recent video discussing Martin Parr