Does anybody besides me think Ralph Gibson's "Leica Picture of the Year"...

That photo is nothing. Had that photo been presented anywhere without mention of who made it or the Leica association, it wouldn’t get more than a two second glance.

When I’m just testing lens focus or exposure, the photos I make are more interesting than that.

The guy may be a great photographer, but that photo doesn’t demonstrate it.

Here - I have written an app for my phone that will make a photo when my friend’s cat meows. The cat has just made this photo. I think it’s better.
 

Attachments

  • 00475E8A-FCF9-46AE-A47F-AF825467B46E.jpg
    00475E8A-FCF9-46AE-A47F-AF825467B46E.jpg
    670.1 KB · Views: 0
Gibson came to the attention of the photography world around the time I first became interested in photography. I loved his work...beautiful surrealist imagery. He was one of the great influences on my own photography and I consider him one of the masters of the art. Just look at The Black Trilogy or Deus ex Machina for instance.

IMO Gibson deserves all his praise and fame.






But not for this particular photograph.
 
It is also proficient, pleasant, disaffected and leaden.

Perhaps Leica delved into this photo as marketing symbol more than we realize. I also feel maybe they didn't go far enough, for some of the qualities it conveys aren't very nice.

One thing: is it me or does it seem digital art photography is drfiting toward sameness?
 
"Compression....." (from the video) Ralph Gibson has taken to the 135 focal length. That certainly offers tight compositions.
 
Emile de Leon said:
Look..
Its a picture of a boat..
Rich people..
Buy Boats..
Rich people..also..
Buy Leicas..
Its a picture for them..
Not you...
Ralphy signs it..sells for $15K..
You sign it..
No one wants..or looks...
End of story.
Click to expand...

100% true!

The picture is great example what LCAG associated, "official" users has become. "Fine Art" carp.
Few months ago I was trying to watch Leica video with some "big name" street photog.
Dude takes weak, cliché pictures. But maybe it was done on purpose to lure average in photography mindsets.

You can't have both, boutique priced cameras, lenses with outdated, so-so service and creative, active crowd.

I checked on SL 601 recently. Released in 2015. Around same time they came with SF26 flash, which I have. Not only its TTL is not compatible with SL's TTL, you can't even slide it into the hot shoe. Checked current users reports, some are calling it as all times champion on camera freezes. No service in NA, only in Germany.
Seven years later M11 are getting returned to boutiques because nothing has changed. Another glitchy, unreliable camera.
 
It's a wonderful marketing award. It's a shot that might be hard to do with a Brownie (of your choice)........

B2 (;-O
 
Those who criticise..the higher up..than them..
Are like fleas on a dog..
Always nippin at sumthin..
To boost their sagging egos..
Ralphy may have had a bad day..
Who hasnt..
Might be gettin old..
Bored maybe..
Whatever..
He did his due and on some level..
The fleas might be better off..cookin their own meals..
And not eating the meals of others..and complainin..
It doesnt taste good..
 
The way I read the press release, this wasn’t a contest of any kind, so it had nothing to do with merit. Every year one photographer gets inducted into the “Leica Hall of Fame” by Leica management. That person gets to choose one of their own photos to have Leica produce 75 framed prints which they sell for $2,000 a pop. There is no judging or quality assessment involved, just a photographer picking one of his own pix for Leica to name “Leica Photo of the Year”, which is a title not really related to anything, and then sit back and wait for the $150,000 to roll in. It’s a good gig.
Maybe he’s just having a laugh, like Bob Dylan releasing an album of Sinatra covers which some critics loved and left some scratching their heads. But people bought it, and had unaccountably strong positive opinions about. Though listening to it, it seemed very meta. There is always, in some quarters of the peanut gallery, a tendency to want to achieve greatness by association, by praising middling works by famous people to signify that you recognize the greatness of said work even if, especially when, your cretinous friends can’t recognize the specialness, thus elevating your own self, at least in your own mind, and with any luck the minds of some others, even if most normal people are still left scratching their heads, and making appointments for eye exams, because maybe they are missing something.
Would it have been better if the color balance wasn’t “off”, or is the unnatural color balance the thing that makes it “art”? I certainly don’t profess to know.

He makes money, Leica gets people talking, dilettantes get a Gibson for their wall, everyone wins. What’s not to like?
I kind of like it personally, but my reasons seem objectively poor.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
There is always, in some quarters of the peanut gallery, a tendency to want to achieve greatness by association, by praising middling works by famous people to signify that you recognize the greatness of said work even if, especially when, your cretinous friends can’t recognize the specialness, thus elevating your own self, at least in your own mind, and with any luck the minds of some others, even if most normal people are still left scratching their heads, and making appointments for eye exams, because maybe they are missing something.
Click to expand...

Sure this may be true, but opinion is also subjective. Some want to try to understand while others do not. If you have been around photography long enough, which you undoubtedly have, you have had to have experienced not getting something but many years later getting it and vise versa. Time, effort and knowledge of history can help you see better in photography. Tastes change. The banal is a thing in photography and whole careers are made from it.

There is not much to get here and it is not a WOW photograph. Many times photographers go for quieter and more subtle images as they get older. I stand by my opinion that the composition works and balances. The color is interesting in an odd way. I also understand that the content might not be enough for some.
 
So I have been reading up a little on Ralph Gibson's current color work, and what jumped out at me is that he has taken to using a 135mm lens. I am pretty impressed he can see and frame images so well using what to me are such small frame lines. I guess he could be using a 1.4x viewfinder magnifier, but they still would be small. It would be like framing using the microprism on an SLR. I haven't used my 135mm lens in ages. Maybe I should give it another try, and see what that perspective does for me. Maybe his Picture of the Year has provided some indirect inspiration for me, even though I think it is a good but not great photograph.
 
Sure this may be true, but opinion is also subjective. Some want to try to understand while others do not. If you have been around photography long enough, which you undoubtedly have, you have had to have experienced not getting something but many years later getting it and vise versa. Time, effort and knowledge of history can help you see better in photography. Tastes change. The banal is a thing in photography and whole careers are made from it.

There is not much to get here and it is not a WOW photograph. Many times photographers go for quieter and more subtle images as they get older. I stand by my opinion that the composition works and balances. The color is interesting in an odd way. I also understand that the content might not be enough for some.
Click to expand...

I can’t argue with any of that. Opinions are subjective, that’s why they don’t call them facts, unless you were Clement Greenberg who seemed to believe his opinions were indeed facts.
I kind of liked the photo, though I don’t think either Leica or Gibson were saying it was the best picture of the year, whatever that would mean.
Was I left, after seeing it, wishing I had done it? Not really, but that’s just an opinion.
 
ranger9 said:
His first book, The Somnambulist, is what put him on the critical map, and I would say deservedly. His photos then were black-and-white, dark, moody, richly toned, and with a strong visual design combined with a vaguely menacing surrealistic air. [...] My point here is that Gibson is one of those photographers who seem to work well in the book medium, where you can see a good selection of related images in a controlled succession that helps you grasp what he's trying to express. It could be that his "Photo of the Year" is part of such a selection that would hang together better if seen as a group, but looks nicely done but underwhelming when snipped out on its own.
Click to expand...

This is a good explanation. Gibson's work is meant to be experienced as sequences. Someone like Henri Cartier-Bresson presents tableaux with enough relationships between people, places and things to contain or hint at a narrative. Photojournalistic pictures like Cartier-Bresson made reveal themselves over time. Gibson's pictures are bold, flashy and impressive. They're more easily legible and so do not demand you study the picture longer to look for details. However, arranged in a sequence, your mind starts looking for relational meaning. Despite Cartier-Bresson having spent time in the surrealist milieu of Paris, his photographs are compositionally closer to the plein air paintings of the Impressionists. On the other hand, Gibson's work, seen in book form, is far closer to genuine surrealism.

I don't think one is necessarily better than the other. These differing approaches - single photograph, sequence, or project - is actually the topic of an exciting recent thread here on RFF.
 
Sometimes criticism is legitimate regardless of who or where it comes from. There might be a top golfer who on some rare occasion shanks the ball. No big deal, it happens. But if some community of elites hails that as a great shot, I can still say they are nuts and it’s a bad shot regardless of my lack of skills.

I’m not criticizing the photographer or even the photo that much - but as “Leica Picture of the Year”, it is a slap to the head.
 
I was transported back to a time when reading Art News, Art Forum etc. was essential for being able to discuss anything aesthetic, hold ones own in any conversation... Especially with the guardians of taste and trend...
"The materials shimmer and the hues glow softly: the narrow excerpt of an image of a motorboat is transformed into an exciting and dynamic composition of lines, surfaces and colour. ...this beautifully-captured moment now becomes a collector’s item – a photograph with great visual appeal: a motif with a strong graphic configuration and an elegant, painting-like quality."
From: https://leicarumors.com/2022/01/30/l...#ixzz7JfsJACu6

Le Motif. $2000 is almost insulting. I have a sudden urge to go to an opening. Have some cheese and wine. Rub elbows.
 
Emile de Leon said:
Those who criticise..the higher up..than them..
Are like fleas on a dog..
Always nippin at sumthin..
To boost their sagging egos..
Ralphy may have had a bad day..
Who hasnt..
Might be gettin old..
Bored maybe..
Whatever..
He did his due and on some level..
The fleas might be better off..cookin their own meals..
And not eating the meals of others..and complainin..
It doesnt taste good..
Click to expand...


I'm not criticizing the photographer. I'm willing to be my IIIc that he has done a LOT better work. The way I choose to read the posts above is just that, focused on Leica.

B2 (;->
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom