Not sure how I feel about this. Clearly the attention he's garnering is coming mainly from interest in the rock bands he shot. And my initial thought is: really? Are another 100 shots of Keith Richards going to be of pressing cultural import, even if they're really great shots? (And then there's the whole issue of trying to get a decent image out of 50 year old Tri-X but let's not even go there).
BUT, buried way down near the end it mentions the fact that not all of his rolls are rock concerts and that (surprise, surprise) he also was an avid photographer of his own life in general. That has much more potential to me than the rock photos. But it's just potentially interesting and/or historical. It's very hard for me to get behind a photographer who (seemingly) wasn't interested enough in his own work to even develop the film. But again, there's just so little information about why, not to mention a real lack of any sort of deeper insight into the photographer.
Maybe I've just found the key to my own future success and recognition as a photographer. Simply stop developing my film! So damn simple!
