Op 23-feb-09, om 16:58 heeft Ken Norton het volgende geschreven:
> I'm in the process of reviewing a photography book for the Zone-10
> website.
> And I'm having troubles.
follow your first thoughts if you want to be honest. You are
reviewing, not the rest of the world
>
> This particular book contains well over a hundred pictures, of
> which, any
> one is probably one of the best B&W or color photographs of its
> genre. The
> authors and photographers (husband and wife team) are extremely
> well-known
> and he's one of the top B&W photographers alive today! His
> writings are
> like "gospel" to the masses and it's going to be heresy if I'm even
> a bit
> critical of him. He's our own living-breathing Ansel Adams.
>
> The writing in the book is outstanding. The photography in the book is
> outstanding. The size of the book and the images in it are huge and
> again,
> outstanding.
>
> My problem is that almost without exception, this is a book of
> "stand-alone"
> pictures. Each photograph on it's own is a seven-course meal. I'd be
> tempted to slice out more than one page, frame it, and hang it on
> the wall.
> The book is a book of pictures, but each one is disjointed from the
> next.
> For example, if there is a photograph of the interior of an old
> abandoned
> house, that's fine, but I want to see several views and angles of
> that house
> to place the photograph into context. I know there are multiple
> pictures
> taken of some of these locations, but they are scattered throughout
> the
> book.
>
Question if it wouldn't have been nicer as a bundle of well printed
loose leaves with a textbook without images?
Question the graphic design in not providing a mind-map for the
understanding of links and relations among images.
Question in general if realtions between images and the "body of
work" are intended, or if it is a showcase of how to print the
perfect B&W image but without intention of being more than just the
image.
> Another thing that is bugging me is that there is too often a
> repeat of
> certain techniques or darkroom tricks. I don't mind seeing a trick
> here and
> there, but when it is repeated over and over again it's getting
> old. Also,
> as another photographer who glanced at the book said: "He's
> including too
> much in the photographs and loses the 'subject'". I somewhat
> disagreed, but
> in reality the vast majority of his images are a case of "weak
> photograph?
> Just make it bigger or screw around with tinting or contrast".
> Technique,
> again, is flawless, but it's just too much technique.
Question if the book had not been better with lesser images, or in a
different way of presenting (I'm imagining the book has one image a
page, there are other ways of presenting, in theme's or even by
darkroom technique. Nothing to be ashamed of to just show
possibilities by technique.
>
> I'm very impressed with the pictures in the book and the writing.
> It's a
> book that I'd recommend, but how do I acknowledge the elephant in
> the room
> without opening up a huge world of hurt? Certain individuals have
> achieved
> "god status" and a critic of the book would probably be criticized
> as being
> a hack photographer in comparison. I'm definitely a hack in
> comparison, but
> I know when something isn't quite "right".
Critisism is important but should be positive. It is a fantastic book
if I hear you talking about it, but it could have been even more
fantastic with (more) intertwining lines of thought throughout the
book? A better framework rather than a collection of images... It
feels like the redaction + graphic design have lost a chance here?
Iwert in his fast broken English
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|