Ralph Gibson article in WIRED about 'going digital'

These are the kinds of things that confuse me. If I ran across those images on Instagram I'd think, ok, well done, he should offer postcards on Etsy along with the 54,000 other people doing those kind of shots.

But- it is Ralph Gibson who, I think, deserves his reputation. He's done some great work over the years. So now it's more like seeing a PBS reunion show of, oh, The Beach Boys. It reminds me of another time but it isn't that time any more. I'm sure Leica has made it worth his while.
 
“I’m not interested in making my images look like analog silver gelatin. Right off the bat I didn't care for that. If I had wanted an analog look, I would've stayed with my film.”

At this particular moment in the photography continuum I think this is an important point, if you go digital don't try to make it look analog. Make the medium work for you.
 
If these images are representative of what a digital Leica did to Mr Gibson's art, I think he should go back to film. ASAP.
 
Images like those are great even with mobile phone. No Leica needed.
So, Pinkhasov beat him on this and while ago.
Well, never late for Gibson, just too late for the statement.
It is kind of late Reznick statement.
 
I always get the strong sense that most of these film era masters of the art made stronger work on film. There are exceptions - David Alan Harvey and Christopher Anderson who both seem to be able to mould whatever medium they're using perfectly around their content.
 
It is interesting that he favours the 135mm lens. There is a youtube or vimeo video of him out with one, looking at detail on the street. I use it occasionally but with a SHOOC finder for framing.
 
I love his old work, not really feeling his new stuff.

Also, this feels entirely like an advertorial. (because I'm pretty sure it is)

Leica Marketing Representative:
"Hey Gibson! Be sure to mention how much you don't miss film so we can sell more digital M cameras. Do it or we'll take away your sponsorship."
 
gavinlg said:
I always get the strong sense that most of these film era masters of the art made stronger work on film. There are exceptions - David Alan Harvey and Christopher Anderson who both seem to be able to mould whatever medium they're using perfectly around their content.
Click to expand...

I feel like Martin Parr is one of the few photographers from that era that still continue to produce great work even on a digital medium. OH and Jeff Mermelstein! He's really embraced it.
 
Speaking of which, and I'm sorry to be talking to myself here.
But does anyone else get the feeling that some of the old Magnum guys are just "phoning it in" these days? The Magnum "2018 Pictures of the Year" gallery was one of the most disappointing galleries I've seen in a long while. I was super shocked at how much mediocrity it contained. Especially knowing how capable of producing better work the people in it were.
 
The man is a master but this stuff is fluff. No better than about a million instagram timelines. Hence, Leica Gallery. I notice MoMA gave it a pass. Lee Friedlander on the other hand ...
 
FalseDigital said:
Speaking of which, and I'm sorry to be talking to myself here.
But does anyone else get the feeling that some of the old Magnum guys are just "phoning it in" these days? The Magnum "2018 Pictures of the Year" gallery was one of the most disappointing galleries I've seen in a long while. I was super shocked at how much mediocrity it contained. Especially knowing how capable of producing better work the people in it were.
Click to expand...


Agree …. I`ve stopped looking at all the Magnum feeds on social media.
 
PunkFunkDunk said:
The man is a master but this stuff is fluff. No better than about a million instagram timelines. Hence, Leica Gallery. I notice MoMA gave it a pass. Lee Friedlander on the other hand ...
Click to expand...

Yep …. couldn`t care less if its film or digital but there is nothing special about those shots.
 
Yes, I'm not sure the medium is even a factor. Gibson's best work is long behind him. It happens with many artists (in all fields) – in fact, I think those who produce as good or better work later in their careers are very much an exception.
 
"It’s faster: Whereas back in the day, he might have made 15 signable works in a year, he now completes a full book in the same span."

This. A good picture per month is a golden standard, no matter film or digital.
 
FalseDigital said:
Speaking of which, and I'm sorry to be talking to myself here.
But does anyone else get the feeling that some of the old Magnum guys are just "phoning it in" these days? The Magnum "2018 Pictures of the Year" gallery was one of the most disappointing galleries I've seen in a long while. I was super shocked at how much mediocrity it contained. Especially knowing how capable of producing better work the people in it were.
Click to expand...

An interesting perspective. With that said I wouldn't completely rule any of them out as all members have proven to be exemplary photographers in my eyes.

Let's say a friend of a friend has a few friends in VII, Magnum blah blah blah. He/she wants you to know that these folks arent much different than a wire photographer or image banks/archive hustler. Volumne is key to making the bills. Add to that, as a full member, you also help keep the agency afloat financialy and in some cases, pay a large sum into the agency/collective/whatever to join.

Soooo, are they all portfolio candidates? No. Sometimes you do the work, submit the files and move on. Often, it is whole other group of people/person who decides what makes it to print/web. Portfolio material is rare. Sometimes a frame or two a year. Paying the bills material comes in volumne.
 
I remember Gibson offering advice to not copy others, and he went on to say he doesn't want to copy himself. I see the dilemma and the need to develop, but many photographers hit their peak and then gradually go down hill. The change in direction doesn't always work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom