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.

[Toyon]

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 ?

I agree with your first statement, but the premise of the second one rankles me QT. Although I do learn more about an artist when I see several of their works, and I can appreciate a tight-knit, linked series or works (as in photojournalistic or narrative work), I also think it can be false device. What I mean is that too often art critics/doorkeepers use the artist's body of work as a way of reassuring themselves that they have picked the right horse. In some cases it is an act of cowardice.

I'm not sure how to respond to your second question. I think that, "Serious work" is an intellectually indefensible term. It has been passed along like a counterfeit coin for generations. There is too much to admire in work that is not "serious", and too little in work that some external force has deemed "serious." Serious is a state of mind in the photographer, it should not be applied to works of art. And no, I don't believe that the series is the ne plus ultra of photography, just another means of the artist's expressing him/her self. Weegee wasted years doing series work he wanted the art world to deem "serious", but his regular commercial work displays his genius unalloyed. We've allowed ourselves to be trapped by the concept in the same way that 19th century academy painters had to paint classical scenes and landscapes in order to be thought of as serious.

I think there is too much emphasis on displaying consciously interrelated series of work, when sometimes the artist has a very eclectic, disparate spirit. All works link on an artists unconscious level, but perhaps we (art schools, gallery owners, viewers) compel artists to create artificial assemblages and contexts, when we are too lazy to find the hidden emphases behind more unorthodox assemblages.

[Bill_1856]

Both Paul Strand and George Tice intend that books and magazines were/are their intended media. Probably other photographers do too? Not many can make a living from print sales.

[Michael Alpert]

Toyon,

I think your opposition to "cowardice" is okay, but not great. Linking "cowardice" with "serious work" seems farfetched. If you would assume that serious work implies artistic integrity and commitment, without dismissing the term out of hand, you'll be on more solid ground.

*

There is no need to generalize about gathering photographs into series. Sometimes that way of working is fruitful and sometimes fruitless; I guess it depends on the stem from which the images grow. From the very beginning of photography, artists explored creative possibilities by making related compositions.

*

For good reason, it makes sense to assume that there is continuity in life. Often the work of artists reflects that continuity. This is true in all forms of art, not just photography.

*

Thank you for raising these issues. I like your intellectual feistiness.

[Toyon]

Response by Toyon to Michael Alpert's comments:

I think your opposition to "cowardice" is okay, but not great. Linking "cowardice" with "serious work" seems farfetched. If you would assume that serious work implies artistic integrity and commitment, without dismissing the term out of hand, you'll be on more solid ground.

* I am not linking cowardice with serious work... nothing of the kind. I am saying that it is cowardly of dealers/curators etc. to use the series, per se, as the ultimate test of an artists ability (or to use that loathsome word, "seriousness").

There is no need to generalize about gathering photographs into series. Sometimes that way of working is fruitful and sometimes fruitless; I guess it depends on the stem from which the images grow. From the very beginning of photography, artists explored creative possibilities by making related compositions.

* If you read carefully, I make no statement about the relative merits of the series versus stand-alone work, just that one should not be considered the "hallmark of most serious work." Worse than that you subvert my real meaning, which is that all art has a continuity anyway, whether or not it has been consciously applied. If it weren't we wouldn't be able to recognize any works by an artist, and we wouldn't be able to recognize the period in which it was produced. But I can tell a Rembrandt without reading the title and I can usually date a photograph within a few years.

* I realize that QT is being rhetorical, but seriousness, except in the mind of the artist (which is not always knowable from the outside) is a preposterous concept. What after all is "seriousness"? Is it a furrowed brow? Is it humorlessness? Is it sacrifice of health and happiness, is it hours setting up equipment? Mapplethorpe was not the most serious guy, but his art can be amazing. Walker Evans was said to be as shallow as a ditch and a drunkard, but his work is monumental. Leni Riefenstal was a psychopath, does that mean she was serious, or not? I know artists who have sacrificed greatly for their work, but I can't look at their work twice. It has been foisted on us by the art world mercantilists who wish to exclude the unschooled, unfiltered, unanointed and ultimately unmarketable from their scarcity-based business strategy.

For good reason, it makes sense to assume that there is continuity in life. Often the work of artists reflects that continuity. This is true in all forms of art, not just photography.

* Again you are responding to your own figment, not my comments. I am simply raising the point that not all people think categorically, chronologically, sequentially, or serially, some do not respond to conventional systems of order, save their own. We can discern that order, as QT admirably states in his first question, by examining more than one work by an artist - a body of work. We owe ourselves, and art in general, our best efforts and casting off conventional, cynical and ultimately irrelevant schemas that try and appropriate and direct our reactions to art.

* Continuity, in my opinion is a scarce, elusive commodity, good for the community, good for the art dealer, but dangerous for the artist.

Thank you for raising these issues. I like your intellectual feistiness.[/QUOTE]

You are welcome.

[Michael Alpert]

Toyon,

" . . . all art has a continuity anyway, whether or not it has been consciously applied."

Yes. I agree.

"Leni Riefenstal was a psychopath, does that mean she was serious, or not."

That is a good question. What art serves is always worth examining. I don't think she ever personally murdered anyone, but she was--in her propensities and allegiances--certainly a psychopath. Your other examples are also worth thinking about.

"I know artists who have sacrificed greatly for their work, but I can't look at their work twice. It has been foisted on us by the art world mercantilists . . . "

Even if you were to like the work of these artists, it might still be foisted on us by "mercantilists . . .". On the other hand, the fact that you cannot look twice is all about you and not about the work. We all make our own arbitrary exclusions. Let's not objectify what is subjective, even if that subjectivity is, in fact, important.

"We owe ourselves, and art in general, our best efforts [,] casting off conventional, cynical and ultimately irrelevant schemas that try [to] appropriate and direct our reactions to art." [I hope my syntactical changes clarify and do not change your meaning]

Okay. I basically agree, though one does not need to reject the conventional as long as one understands it. In fact, to reject something is still to be trapped by it. Our reactions to art were appropriated in childhood. It's too late to change that. The question of how to "de-appropriate" is too thorny for me even to consider on this forum.

"Continuity, in my opinion is a scarce, elusive commodity, good for the community, good for the art dealer, but dangerous for the artist."

I don't think that continuity is a commodity or that life is life without basic continuity. Your statement quoted above seems to be at odds with this statement. "THE artist" is a concept that I know nothing about.

"You are welcome."

I am not in opposition to anything that you have written, though I do not share your viewpoint. Thanks again.