Photography books leave me kind of cold.

[Toyon]

Before I get attacked, let me preface that I think photography books are wonderful references, can have beautifully crafted reproductions that in some cases are superior to the original print, and they allow us access to photos that I could never see hanging on walls. I peruse them and use them for my enjoyment and education.

Yet the impact of seeing an actual print is so much greater to me. In a print, I can sense the presence of the photographer in all the myriad decisions that he/she makes in its production.

In addition, there is a kind of summing up in a book that I find a bit depressing. If the work isn't part of a series and therefore contextually dependent, doesn't the photographer really deserve that the viewer sees his/her work individually? A book is a piling up of many images that may have taken many years for the artist to produce and may reflect many journeys and stories inscribed in their own making. A book may represent and induced context that in some way overpowers the individuality of the work and applies an outside editorial filter. Even an artist-produced book may in a post-facto sense subvert the artist's real-time sensibility, by applying a chronologic, artificial order to a process that is far more chaotic and serendipitous. Are we too willing to trade the orthodoxy of the book making process for the intuitive disorderliness of much photography?

When I see a print on a wall or table, I see a work, without layers of post-facto ordering and context, and instead can immerse myself, like an ancient worshiper, in the dominion of the image.

[Bill_1856]

You make an excellent point.
The photography books I like best are those accompanied by text. Whether they are "here's what I was thinking and here's how I did it," like St. Ansel's "60 Examples," or my favorites of all -- Paul Strand's "Time in New England," with historical text quotations by Nancy Newhall, and Edward Weston's "Daybooks."
In many cases, the reproductions may actually be better than the original prints (not all great photographers are master printers), but the size constraints are often a limiting factor in enjoying the photographs.

[Nathan Potter]

I like to think that a book of an artists work and a single original photograph both have a place in communication. Perhaps I prefer the single original photograph; I think because it is a contract, so to speak, between the photographer and the viewer. Both have interpreted the subject based on their respective sensibilities and their life experiences without influence of outside commentators and critics. I think for me the viewing of a single original photograph without external comment becomes a voyage of personal discovery much like (while out photographing) the discovery of a scene which contains more than what is just physically present.

Nate Potter

[Vaughn]

I understand your point, but I see a well produced/made book as an important addition to a body of actual prints of a photographer...not to replace the experience of viewing actual prints, but to increase the exposure of the images to a wider audience, and to make the images available that may never otherwise get seen.

Like a book, a show itself does apply "a chronologic, artificial order to a process that is far more chaotic and serendipitous"...or at least hopefully the artist and/or curator does do some serious editing and arrangement.

But you are right, the average book should not replace the experience of viewing prints. The exception is the hand-made book, which can be an artform in of itself.

Vaughn

[Michael Alpert]

When I see a print on a wall or table, I see a work, without layers of post-facto ordering and context, and instead can immerse myself, like an ancient worshiper, in the dominion of the image.

Yes, a well-made original print often has more impact than an individual photographic reproduction in a well-made book. And a book takes you away from the type of centered encounter that you are advocating. But I wonder how many photographs would be considered important enough to exhibit or publish without the context made by the flow of the photographer's effort, the unfolding of artistic ideas and envisionings. Anyway, no one needs to choose between prints and books. We have both, and we can enjoy them differently. Think of them as different kinds of music.

[QT Luong]

What you see I a drawback of books, I see it as a strength. Aren't photographers appreciated and judged on bodies of works, rather than individual images ? Isn't the series the hallmark of most serious work ?

[Kirk Gittings]

I also think there is a big difference between a book of photographs by a particular photographer and a book project that is itself a single complete work of art. Time in New England and The Americans comes to mind. To me seeing the originals would be a treat, but not the same powerful aesthetic experience as the book as a unique artwork in and of itself.

[stehei]

I think it is comparing two different forms of expression which cannot be compared.
They serve different purposes, have different forms, and both have a very important function, and both have a different presentation methodology.
I like individual prints, and I like books, and a good photobook is no presentation of a body of work as is, but a thoughtfull story with a movie-like plot, so to speak.
BTW, all meant very friendly and not offensive, just to make sure I'm not being misunderstood,

regards

stefan

[John Kasaian]

Well, a book isn't an original print although there have been portfolios of original prints created in the not too distant past. You're right about the difference between looking at a print as opposed to looking at a book, but, how often do you or any of us get to look at an extensive collection of original prints by _________(name your 'tog of choice?)

As an enjoyer of photographs, I like the idea of looking at the works of talented photographers in a well done book or magazine when I have no opportunity to see the real deal.

As a photographer I like the idea of books as well. Good pictures are like manure, they need to be spread around in order to be of any use. The more people who can appreciate a photograph the better IMHO. If the only way they'll ever get to enjoy it is in a book or magazine, well that sure beats the alternative, dosen't it?

Books don't leave me "cold" but oddly enough sometimes art galleries do. Even though I recognize that gallery's function is to sell art and that is certainly admirable, there is a sterility in many exhibits that leave me "cold."
I've attempted to describe this feeling before. It's wierd I guess. I understand that a photograph should be exhibited in a setting with no distractions but I just can't wrap my brain around a piece of art that is isolated from it's surroundings, which is to say it's usefulness---it strikes me as similar to being sold a chair that you can't sit on, or an automobile you can't test drive.

[Ash]

The reason I love JeanLoup Sieff is because of his books. I love the photographs, but I love to see ALL his photographs. Any one of them I could stare at for hours, and I'm sure I've spent time doing so.

I'm not so lucky as to have prints to view, and London is an expensive journey to view art. However when I do view prints I get what you're trying to say. I can look and really take the time with the image. However I find myself rushed by those around me, or else the glass is reflecting light and flaring on the print.

I'm left cold by images of sculptures and representations of artwork. For example the books by the Saatchi gallery or Tate Modern that only give you one angle of an immense structure (Hirst, Mueck, Lucas - you have to LIVE around their work to appreciate it, you have to give up an hour of your life to breath the air around them).

As much as I do appreciate a large print on the wall, in general I much prefer to sit at home, on my bed, relax, and view the images bound in a book.