Ralph Gibson article in WIRED about 'going digital'

[Ko.Fe.]

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.

I recently purchased Magnum contacts book. Looking at images only and keep on asking myself - why is it special? I think, it is time to put reading glasses on and find out. It is huge book with tiny text.

 

[FujiLove]

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.

I had the same feeling looking at some recent digital photos by Martin Parr. Very uninspiring. But then again, most people do their best work when they're young, whether they're photographers, musicians, sculptors, writers or scientists; so maybe it's just an age thing.

-----------------------

As Irvine Welsh put it in 'Trainspotting'...


Sick Boy: It's certainly a phenomenon in all walks of life.
Mark: What do you mean?
Sick Boy: Well, at one time, you've got it, and then you lose it, and it's gone forever. All walks of life: George Best, for example. Had it, lost it. Or David Bowie, or Lou Reed.
Mark: Lou Reed, some of his solo stuff's not bad.
Sick Boy: No, it's not bad, but it's not great either. And in your heart you kind of know that although it sounds all right, it's actually just sh*te.
Mark: So who else?
Sick Boy: Charlie Nicholas, David Niven, Malcolm McLaren, Elvis Presley . . .
Mark: OK, OK, so what's the point you're trying to make?
Sick Boy: All I'm trying to do, Mark, is help you understand that The Name of The Rose is merely a blip on an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory.
Mark: What about The Untouchables?
Sick Boy: I don't rate that at all.
Mark: Despite the Academy Award?
Sick Boy: That means F**k all. It's a sympathy vote.
Mark: Right. So we all get old and then we can't hack it anymore. Is that it?
Sick Boy: Yeah.
Mark: That's your theory?
Sick Boy: Yeah. Beautifully f***ing illustrated.

 

[Dogman]

The photos in Gibson's "Mono" were pretty strong, in my opinion. I think the book was done in 2013 with a Leica Monochrome camera. Akin to his work from the 1970's. I've never been a fan of his color photography. When he shoots color, he finds the same subjects as he shoots in B&W. They don't translate well as color.

I agree about the Magnum Pictures of the Year being weak.

 

[olifaunt]

I had the same feeling looking at some recent digital photos by Martin Parr. Very uninspiring.

Also Stephen Shore. I went to his show at MoMA. The earlier work is fantastic; the later part lacked everything that made the earlier work interesting IMO, though I don't know if it is really about digital/analog or simply his moving into different directions and the influence of digital imaging and Instagram on him.

I think social media can be a negative influence on quality, since it favors simple pictures that are understandable and look striking as miniatures (on cell screens).

 

[Richard G]

I had the same feeling looking at some recent digital photos by Martin Parr. Very uninspiring. But then again, most people do their best work when they're young, whether they're photographers, musicians, sculptors, writers or scientists; so maybe it's just an age thing.

-----------------------

As Irvine Welsh put it in 'Trainspotting'...


Sick Boy: It's certainly a phenomenon in all walks of life.
Mark: What do you mean?
Sick Boy: Well, at one time, you've got it, and then you lose it, and it's gone forever. All walks of life: George Best, for example. Had it, lost it. Or David Bowie, or Lou Reed.
Mark: Lou Reed, some of his solo stuff's not bad.
Sick Boy: No, it's not bad, but it's not great either. And in your heart you kind of know that although it sounds all right, it's actually just sh*te.
Mark: So who else?
Sick Boy: Charlie Nicholas, David Niven, Malcolm McLaren, Elvis Presley . . .
Mark: OK, OK, so what's the point you're trying to make?
Sick Boy: All I'm trying to do, Mark, is help you understand that The Name of The Rose is merely a blip on an otherwise uninterrupted downward trajectory.
Mark: What about The Untouchables?
Sick Boy: I don't rate that at all.
Mark: Despite the Academy Award?
Sick Boy: That means F**k all. It's a sympathy vote.
Mark: Right. So we all get old and then we can't hack it anymore. Is that it?
Sick Boy: Yeah.
Mark: That's your theory?
Sick Boy: Yeah. Beautifully f***ing illustrated.

OK. And despite Bach and the guy who cracked some centuries old maths problem recently in the time after his retirement, I’m going to learn from this post and finally see Trainspotting.

 

[MCTuomey]

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 admire this man. At 83 he is still putting out his work.

Thanks for the practical perspectives, fully agree. As I've aged, I admire long-haul persistence at one's craft more than critical acclaim, as the latter is usually fleeting and shallow. Keep on, Mr. Gibson.

 

[Timmyjoe]

"Gibson took the camera outside, pointed it at a manhole cover and snapped a photo. Just as he did, a bicycle zipped by, casting dramatic, spoked shadows across the pavement within the frame."

When pigs fly.

There's no way a photographer who has mastered the art of seeing as Ralph Gibson has, would be caught with an image of a manhole cover that just happen to have this bicycle shadow appearing in it. He saw what the image would be and waited for the moment where the bicycle shadow would be where he wanted it.

After reading that ridiculous statement, I lost total interest in the article.

Best,
-Tim

 

[emraphoto]

Also Stephen Shore. I went to his show at MoMA. The earlier work is fantastic; the later part lacked everything that made the earlier work interesting IMO, though I don't know if it is really about digital/analog or simply his moving into different directions and the influence of digital imaging and Instagram on him.

I think social media can be a negative influence on quality, since it favors simple pictures that are understandable and look striking as miniatures (on cell screens).

Totally agree with the Social Media observation. It (SM) has a profound effect on photography in ways we have yet to realize (yes professor obvious).

One of those effects is a shift towards large scale palatability. Clicks equals $.

 

[creenus]

Nowhere near his earlier analog work, IMO.

 

[airfrogusmc]

The last two dyptychs are really good.

Totally agree and the work still looks like Gibson's work. I would also add that 2 & 3 are very Gibson like photographs. And I would argue that many now are taking photographs trying to emulate Gibson's work not the other way around.

 

[FujiLove]

OK. And despite Bach and the guy who cracked some centuries old maths problem recently in the time after his retirement, I’m going to learn from this post and finally see Trainspotting.

Yes, my comment is a huge generalisation, but applies to most people. Unfortunately you can't beat a youthful brain.


Trainspotting: great film, greater book. The problem with the book is, like most of Welsh's work, it's written in a Scottish accent and uses a lot of slang which can make it difficult if you don't have an 'ear' for it. Both highly recommended though.

 

[ptpdprinter]

After reading that ridiculous statement, I lost total interest in the article.

At 677 words, it hardly qualifies as an article.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Ralph Gibson went digital because Leica gave him a special edition Monochome and a pile of money to promote their digital cameras. He now has a show whose raison d'etre is that the images are digital, hence the title.

 

[FujiLove]

Ralph Gibson went digital because Leica gave him a special edition Monochome and a pile of money to promote their digital cameras. He now has a show whose raison d'etre is that the images are digital, hence the title.

In fairness to him, if Leica gave me a load of free gear and a ton of money I'd also shoot digital.


Kidding, obviously. 😀

 

[ptpdprinter]

In fairness to him, if Leica gave me a load of free gear and a ton of money I'd also shoot digital. Kidding, obviously. 😀

I am thinking of calling my next show Digital Images. At least it would give me something to talk about. No one ask me if my images were film or digital the last time around.

 

[sepiareverb]

Calling this an 'article' is a bit of a stretch. It's more like a pair of tweets.

 

[karateisland]

Per the age thing: It's pretty common for authors to produce their greatest work when they're older, and I can name more than a handful of painters who did the same.

So it is pretty common for artists to improve with age. If we don't see many photographers doing their best work when they're older, I wonder why that's the case...

 

[Pioneer]

I admire this man. At age 83 he is still putting out his work.

This.


...& another 5 characters or so...

 

[Richard G]

Totally agree and the work still looks like Gibson's work. I would also add that 2 & 3 are very Gibson like photographs. And I would argue that many now are taking photographs trying to emulate Gibson's work not the other way around.

Yes, I liked 2 and 3 too.

I love WIRED magazine. I often heard about it when some new tech thing was mentioned in our local paper, "according to WIRED magazine." Eventually I found it by chance on the shelf in the newsagency at work. The graphics and layout are great and the articles are fantastic, often without fear of favour, and long enough to get the message across. The recent piece on John Allison's work for the Nobel Prize in Medicine was a terrific detective story, immunology primer and analysis of success in science. https://www.wired.com/story/meet-jim-allison-the-texan-who-just-won-a-nobel-cancer-breakthrough/

Sure this is more of a "couple of tweets" but the point is Ralph Gibson is in WIRED. That says a lot for him and for WIRED. It's interesting. We're a tough school, which is great. Ralph Gibson no doubt has perspective on who he now is and where he is at. What is he to do? Leica want to make a silver Monochrom with his signature on it. Should he have said no? He wants to shoot a 135mm focal length on a digital rangefinder or pair his Monochrom with the DR Summicron, for the close range: are we going to learn nothing from knowing about that?

Good someone mentioned writers and painters doing good work into old age. Composers too - Richard Strauss for one. One of the advantages of youth is uninterrupted time and boundless energy. My thirties and early forties were consumed by work and family. I had more ideas in my field towards 50 and in my early 50s. Now I'm working too hard again on the core work of my work to get all but a couple of those ideas to go anywhere. I am up before dawn to write something; but I am doing this post first...

 

[Bike Tourist]

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 old guys and gals (and I'm as old as they are) were the best of their age, during a time when photography was still relatively fresh and new paths presented themselves. Many made contacts by assisting earlier famous photographers. They still rose to the top of their era.

But, there's nothing difficult about photography, especially if you have the "eye" for composing in the viewfinder, which many people do. Many of the revered iconic images would not fare well in any blind competition where the name of the artist was not known. Technical excellence, while not everything, was certainly lacking in many of these images. Digital and the internet has devalued most art and its ubiquity devalues it even further.

Anyway, I give these pioneers credit for being on top of their game when it mattered.