Suggestions on Books for Editorial Style Photography Stories?

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

But history has shown the importance of both the Beatles and the Stones.

I think history will show the opposite. I'd be interested to know what percentage of 25 year olds in any country could tell you today who they were or what they might have been important for.

There was a clever joke on the subject in a BBC drama with the title "The Flipside of Dominick Hide", first broadcast in 1980. A scene set in 2130 shows Hyde watching a 3D image of a Beatles performance. One of the characters asks "Don't you ever get tired of listening to that boring classical music"?

 

[airfrogusmc]

I'll bet any 25 year old serious musician knows who they are.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . And again it doesn't change the fact that book is a great example of how to put a book together visually.

As I keep saying, true. ALL I am saying is that "My sole intent was to stop people having excessive expectations."

It is perfectly possible for a book to be both very good AND overrated. It is also possible that there are cultural (i.e. substantially historical) reasons why The Americans is more highly regarded in the USA than in the rest of the world -- and I believe this to be the case, as I said in my original post.

I don't think (I'm not sure) that any non-American has yet disagreed with this simple statement.

Cheers,

R.

 

[stet]

for the OP, +1 on the Ken Kobre book (although, it's been updated since 1980!)

NPPA used to have a library where members could borrow tapes and I think books, and it was all done through the mail. I can't find that list of materials anymore, but they do have newer stuff online. Not a book, but here's a lecture on photo essays:

https://nppa.org/node/25141

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I don't think (I'm not sure) that any non-American has yet disagreed with this simple statement.

I am very much afraid that you are wasting your time on this, Roger. In my experience, once someone backs themselves into a corner in this type of discussion, a sensible exchange of views becomes impossible. However, this does raise an interesting point about the shared culture or lack of it, between America and Europe. In Britain, we think that we share our cultural background with America, because of our shared history and language. We don't, really.

The original purpose of this thread highlights the difference. I started out in the local press, worked with magazines and ended up as an editor, back in local newspapers. When I look at American publications, the differences are quite considerable. I doubt whether a book on the British press would give much more than a general guide to working for American publications and vice versa.

:angel:

 

[charlesholland]

This thread was pointed out to me by Dave Jenkins. My all time favorite is still Koudelka's gypsies (only mentioned once here....) which can be nicely compared with the current book of Mike Roelofs: resilience. Both dealing with the same theme but completely different style, context, photographic storytelling, not abnormal knowing the time, background and culture differences between teh two photographers.

 

[KansanTim]

I think history will show the opposite. I'd be interested to know what percentage of 25 year olds in any country could tell you today who they were or what they might have been important for.

There was a clever joke on the subject in a BBC drama with the title "The Flipside of Dominick Hide", first broadcast in 1980. A scene set in 2130 shows Hyde watching a 3D image of a Beatles performance. One of the characters asks "Don't you ever get tired of listening to that boring classical music"?

It depends on which category of 25 year olds you are talking about. Most people are rather superficial in their music listening interests, so most 25 year olds will know a limited number of contemporary hits, and probably will know a couple Beatles and couple Stones songs and not much more.

However, among 25 year olds who get interested in pop music? The type to hang out in record stores (or dedicated online forums)? The vast majority, even those who prefer/focus on contemporary trends or other eras, will know quite a bit about the Beatles and the Stones, and probably will have immersed themselves in 60's music by choice at some point in their music listening evolution, even if they don't end up there. I certainly did (although the Who and the Velvet Underground were the groups I obsessed over in my 60's phase), and I was born well after the Beatles broke up and the Stones were mostly just cashing in. The 60's era is consistently the most obsessed over period of recorded music. With the relative lack of direction in contemporary pop music, I imagine the 60's will be cool to 25 year olds for many years to come (don't know about in 2130, hopefully something new comes along before then). There is an excellent book on the topic of music's current trend of looking backwards, the 60's heavily featured in the trend, called Retromania, by Simon Reynolds.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I am very much afraid that you are wasting your time on this, Roger. In my experience, once someone backs themselves into a corner in this type of discussion, a sensible exchange of views becomes impossible. However, this does raise an interesting point about the shared culture or lack of it, between America and Europe. In Britain, we think that we share our cultural background with America, because of our shared history and language. We don't, really.

The original purpose of this thread highlights the difference. I started out in the local press, worked with magazines and ended up as an editor, back in local newspapers. When I look at American publications, the differences are quite considerable. I doubt whether a book on the British press would give much more than a general guide to working for American publications and vice versa.

:angel:

This seems increasingly apparent in the age of the internet, when you can get unmediated opinions from real people. I've lived in the UK, the USA and France, and travelled in many countries. My wife is American, admittedly Anglophile, Europhile and me-ophile. We agree that we have more in common with most of our Indian or Indian-educated Tibetan friends than with the majority of Americans. Note "the majority". In absolute terms we probably have more American friends, but proportionally (out of the number of people we have met) we almost certainly have more Indian and Indian-educated Tibetan friends. We also find ourselves more at home in those cultures, and in Europe, and in the UK, than in the USA.

This is not USA-bashing. It's just pointing out (as you do) that the UK and the USA have far less in common than the romantics from either country like to pretend -- and that the UK and continental Europe have far more in common than proponents of Little England like to pretend.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This thread was pointed out to me by Dave Jenkins. My all time favorite is still Koudelka's gypsies (only mentioned once here....) which can be nicely compared with the current book of Mike Roelofs: resilience. Both dealing with the same theme but completely different style, context, photographic storytelling, not abnormal knowing the time, background and culture differences between teh two photographers.

Dear Charles,

My suspicion is that this is because most people buy their opinions at second hand (note airfrogusmc I am NOT including you in this) and are therefore unduly influenced by popular/semi-popular opinion.

Gypsies (1975) is of course more than 15 years after The Americans, which in turn is over 20 years after The English at Home or You Have Seen Their Faces. They're all very, very good. But to hold The Americans up as a game-changer is, in my view, complete nonsense in view of the continuing history of reportage from Roger Fenton and the Crimean War (1855) to the present day.

There's ALWAYS the question of how interesting we find the subject, too. I saw an exhibition of Koudelka's Gypsies at Arles in (I think) 2012, and I have to say that much as I admired the book, the photos gave it an extra dimension.

Cheers,

R.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Yeah the OP couldn't get anything from looking at the Americans unless the OP was American LOL....

And to Roger, I came to my opinion by looking at the book and thinking for myself, I know the thinking part is hard for some. The images in the Americans changed photography from that point on. Whether you like the change or not it happened. Witkin changed photography. Whether you like his work or not he changed it. Like the Americans, Witkin had a profound impact and things were not the same after. Because I don't think like Roger I don't think for myself, yeah, Ok, LoL.....

Again no one has yet showed how the OP couldn't learn from looking at the Americans.

Yep I'm not a real person with a real opinion LoL. You guys are the most open minded bunch of so called creatives I've run into in a long time.. LoL.....The Americans couldn't be important to someone thats not American because it's about Americans(it's really about so much more but you have to look) That would be like an American saying Atgets work isn't important because it's about France or August Sanders work isn't important because it's about Germans. LoL...

And I still stand by the opinion that the OP could learn something from The Americans and thats not saying he couldn't learn stuff from other places to. LoL.

Ask any street photographer about who his biggest influences are and the majority would more than likely list Frank as one. And The Americans as a book that inspired them. I know it has had an impact on me and my work for not only the aesthetics but the way I have paced the dozens of exhibits I have had over the years. Just had a big one last year and I'm working on another for 2015.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Heres just two that Frank had a big impact on.
Meyerowitz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvRyXju8Fmo

Winogrand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RM9KcYEYXs

And a couple of other things to about the subject of the Americans
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100688154

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/...s-can-learn-from-robert-franks-the-americans/

http://arafiqui.wordpress.com/2009/...nce-robert-frank-the-creation-of-photography/

But again The Americans can be a great tool to help in organizing ones own work into a book or an exhibit becasue it has a flow that is fairly clear if you look for it. So why not recommend someone that book to get a few answers from along with many of the others mentioned here?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yeah the OP couldn't get anything from looking at the Americans unless he was American LOL....

And to Roger, I came to my opinion by looking at the book and thinking for myself, I know the thinking part is hard for some. The images in the Americans changed photography from that point on. Whether you like the change or not it happened. Witkin changed photography. Whether you like his work or not he changed it. Like the Americans, Witkin had a profound impact and things were not the same after. Because I don't think like Roger I don't think for myself, yeah, Ok, LoL.....

Again no one has yet showed how the OP couldn't learn from looking at the Americans.

Yep I'm not a real person with a real opinion LoL. You guys are the most open minded bunch of so called creatives I've run into in a long time.. LoL.....The Americans couldn't be important to someone thats not American because it's about Americans(it's really about so much more but you have to look) That would be like an American saying Atgets work isn't important because it's about France or August Sanders work isn't important because it's about Germans. LoL...

And I still stand by the opinion that the OP could learn something from The Americans and thats not saying he couldn't learn stuff from other places to. LoL.

Ask any street photographer about who his biggest influences are and the majority would more than likely list Frank as one. And The Americans as a book that inspired them. I know it has had an impact on me and my work for not only the aesthetics but the way I have paced the dozens of exhibits I have had over the years. Just had a big one last year and I'm working on another for 2015.

Well, you certainly don't always READ for yourself, whether you think or not. See posts 28, 36 ("Very true. My sole intent was to stop people having excessive expectations"), 43, 45 (not mine), 49 ("most people buy their opinions at second hand -- note airfrogusmc I am NOT including you in this")

Cheers,

R.

 

[airfrogusmc]

It seem things always take turns away from what is important to the OP and in this case love hate whatever The Americans or Robert Frank the fact remains that it is a great book to see how a photo book with a theme is but together. That is exactly what I was saying and have been saying before it got into whether the book was important and I say it was and is important and very influential even today. Somehow it always turns into well A is better than B argument when both can be great in the own ways.

The Americans whether one is American or not did change things. Whether one likes those changes is a different conversation but to the OP if you want to see a good example of how to put a photo book together The Americans is a great example of that. There are also other good example of how to do that out there.

I also like Bressons Mexican Notebooks, Bruce Davidson's East 100th Street and Subway because these also show a great flow and would be good places to see how it is effectively done.

And I clearly do think for myself. Sometimes here anyone with a different point of view gets first attacked by A usually totally off topic to discredit and them 4 or 5 others join in the feeding frenzy. Is that one brain and 4 or 5 others or is it 4 or 5 other that make up one brian. LoL.

So open minded around here. LoL.

Again per my original thoughts The Americans is a great reference to see how a good photo book is put together. Show me where I am wrong in that Roger. Whether you like another photo book or photographer better is certainly your choice and there are many I like better than Frank but for what I mentioned that book is great source as well as many others.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It seem things always take turns away from what is important to the OP and in this case love hate whatever The Americans or Robert Frank the fact remains that it is a great book to see how a photo book with a theme is but together. That is exactly what I was saying and have been saying before it got into whether the book was important and I say it was and is important and very influential even today. Somehow it always turns into well A is better than B argument when both can be great in the own ways.

The Americans whether one is American or not did change things. Whether one likes those changes is a different conversation but to the OP if you want to see a good example of how to put a photo book together The Americans is a great example of that. There are also other good example of how to do that out there.

I also like Bressons Mexican Notebooks, Bruce Davidson's East 100th Street and Subway because these also show a great flow and would be good places to see how it is effectively done.

No, you're STILL not reading what I said. I've repeatedly said it's very good. I have also repeatedly said that it is not venerated the same way outside the USA as inside, and that I would not like the OP to approach it with unrealistically high expectations.

Do you have any disagreement with any of these factual statements?

Cheers,

R.

 

[airfrogusmc]

And I said in the world of photography The Americans is an important book and the visuals not the necessarily subject that made it an important book everywhere. And in this particular case I'm saying look at the flow of the book to get the idea of how to effectively put together a photo book.

The OP asked for books to help him I mentioned The Americans for the reasons I have mentioned. There are also other great places to look but I never said it was the only place he should look. Look at who influenced Frank and Davidson to while he is at it. (Evans) As far as a book The Americans it has a very deliberate flow and look that stands as one of the best in that regard and if he, the OP, hadn't seen it, he should.

 

[Roger Hicks]

And I said in photography it is the visuals not the subject that made it an important book everywhere.

The OP asked for books to help him I mentioned The Americans for the reasons I have mentioned. There are also other great places to look but I never said it was the only place he should look. Look at who influenced Frank and Davidson to while he is at it. (Evans) As far as a book with very deliberate flow and look the Americans stands as one of the best and if he hadn't seen it should.

Have I denied any of this?

Cheers,

R.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Then we are in agreement.