Ralph Gibson's style of photography

I'm I missing the boat here? Anyone in this forum like to see Ralph

Gibson's work? I think his images are pretty dam boring. Leica inc.

seems to be pushing he's work lately.

I'm very visual kind of person, and I can tell a good picture from a

bad one, But his stuff?, I don't get it. I wonder if any of you feel

the same.

Can't say if you're missing the boat or not, but I personally find Gibson's work very accessible and attractive. his b&w work is often very rich on contrast and texture.

 

like everything visual, it is in the eye of the beholder.

 

I do think Leica is doing the right thing aligning their marketing with such a photographer as Gibson and others. The focus have to be more on people and their output/art rather than machines and features.

 

namaste,

Felix,

 

spend more time with the images. look at Ralph's earlier books like 'The Somnambulist', the later 'Overtones', or 'Deus Ex Machina'. I think Leica is quite fortunate, and counting their blessings perhaps, to have Ralph Gibson's photography showcase the strengths of the Leica M system and present the world with its inherent possibilities.

Not only do I not get his photography, but I can't comprehend his statements

either.

 

From the M7 brochure, "The photographer is the light".

 

From the Leica Catalog on the normal M lens page; "only with a perfect sense

of relationships will the drama become reality", and "(the lens) imparts a

passionate ablility to react spontaneously".

 

The statements are flowery yes, but entirely non-sensical. Drama becoming

reality? It is or it isn't and a 50mm lens won't change either. Nor will a 50mm

lens (or any lens) impart any ability.

 

Pompous and self-aggrandizing IMHO.

Excuse my ignorance, but just who is this "Ralph Gibson"? I

keep reading "oooh-ahhhh" references to his work - any URLs

anyone can point to?

<p>I thought his work poor too, until I spent a little time with it, especially Deus Ex

Machina, which spans his entire career.

 

<p>Andrew, try <a href="http://www.ralphgibson.com">this</a>.

Ralph likes to overexpose and over develope his negatives and then print them on high contrast paper. I like his early work but I haven't looked at his newer stuff at all.

 

YMMV.

Let me say just one thing, I do like his early work especialy his B&W images. What I can't seem to get are his new images in Color. I guess I need to do some more research on him.

Felix,

I think the boat is on the horizon and you are waiving it bye bye.

Anybody interested can try

http://www.ralphgibson.com/main.html

Ralph Gibson's statements don't have to make sense. He's an artist....

I, for one, don't like the work he has up on his website. Nothing much there to my eye. Just mindless "artistic" nothingness.

OH....Thats A good one Sal.

Each of us has photographers whose work we like and others we don't care for. If I told you my favorite photographers, most people on this forum would not recognize some of the names. Ralph Gibson does not happen to be a favorite of mine, but his stature as a photographer/artist is well established. Let me say very kindly that while you may feel you are qualified to judge the work of a photographer such as Ralph Gibson, in actuality his work judges you.

Josh Root .. I am a mathematician. I am quite confident I could show you some integral Calculus scribblings on paper, or the works of Newton or other genius that you might find as 'mindless nothingness'. your assessment, based on your own limitations, does not indict the work nor say much of anything about it other than that you don't understand it or care for it. fair enough?

 

this is, of course, all subjective, and I appreciate the reality that not everyone enjoys the works of Ralph Gibson, Beethoven, Keith Carter, or Rembrandt. however, to listen to negative reviews of Ralph Gibson's work from this audience goes far beyond any reasoning or logic I can grasp.

He's my favorite, followed, maybe, by Michals. If I could trade in my eyes for someone else's I might pick Gibson. It is difficult to explain your taste to someone else who doesn't who doesn't share it. Sometimes it's a very personal, very internal thing. The analogy with mathematics is apt. We all can grow by trying to see what others see. And now that I've written it it seems very trite. Maybe an example. His pic of the person carrying the white stick parallel to the white line in the street gave me an.. an esthetic moment I won't forget. Not that I've been able to translate this into productivity on my part. It was just pure enjoyment; seems silly but there it is.

Daniel, As a math expert, you can understand the documents you mentioned can't you? Well, as a professional photographer, I feel as I should be able to understand the statements of other photographers. I don't understand Ralph Gibsons. There is nothing wrong or right about liking or disliking anyones work (except mine :-}). It's only a matter of opinion.....

Sal ... that is exactly what I said. just because I pick up Feynman's 'QED' and don't understand a word of it, does that somehow invalidate Quantum Electromechanics? I may not understand or appreciate gravity, but it keeps me out of the heavens.

 

I think Ralph Gibson's work may be an acquired taste and require multiple viewings. a genius, and perhaps my favourite photographer.

Er, Daniel, QED stands for Quantum Electrodynamics, not Quantum Electromechanics. As a mathematician, engineer and physicist you might well appreciate the difference ;-)

 

I cannot so easily dismiss the lay reactions to Ralph Gibson's work. While I do agree with you that accessibility is not necessarily an indicator of quality or merit, Gibson's work has a near impenetrable vocabulary to me which makes it, at the least, exclusivist. What is it? I dunno. What is it trying to say? I dunno. Can I figure out his code by looking from one picture to the next or his work in context? Er, not quite. Is it coherent? Well, yes, it seems to be-it is quite formal in its geometry and definitely has a quality of 'sparseness'.

 

If I were intellectually and aesthetically ambitious, I guess I would delight in poring over his mysterious runes. Being of average attention span, however, I do admit, I too get bored after a while.

When I think of Leica M and the word artist....I think of Ralph Gibson. He seems to me to be the quintissential Leica photographer. Just like the M camera....sharp and direct, perfect construction and composition...stylistic, personalised and flawless delivery with a bit of fantasy thrown in. If you don't care to understand abstract philosophy and art in in relation to personal being....you might not be able to relate to him.

<brain engaged> <spellcheck on>

 

yes Mani, Quantum Electrodynamics .. typing error. perhaps half-credit for getting QED correct and not as QEM? I even have the book on my bookshelf and have read it, so there is little excuse.

 

I want to recommend a good introduction to Ralph Gibson's work, as many might turn away because of the nudity in 'Infanta' or 'Lichtjahre'. Leica enthusiasts should find the June/July 2000 issue of Camera Arts and the wonderful Mary Ann Lynch interview with Ralph. you can hardly read it without running to the phone and ordering a new M6/M7. Andre Kertesz and Bill Brandt are also favourites of mine, and their influence on Ralph Gibson looms large.

 

<brain disengaged>

If Gibson were not a Leica user his stuff would probably not find as many apologists as are apparent here. John

I don't understand it either, but I think that it's a very generational problem on my part. I do appreciate the quality of his work, if not the content.

Funny, I always thought Gibson was one of the least controversial and most accessible photographers around, the formalist Salgado. But then I would have said the same about HCB, and there was a big argument about the value of <i>his</i> work a couple of days ago.

<p>

 

I always feel that one way of seeing whether someone has a valid, strong personal vision, is to ask myself whether I could have taken any of their pictures myself. I'm pretty confident that Gibson and Eggleston, for instance, are the genuine article because I really couldn't take the kind of pictures they do.

IMHO, Gibson is a great artist. I identify him more with artists who paint more so than with Salgado or HCB (and they all use Leicas!). Until you see the actual prints the artist prepares for a museum installation, you're rushing to judgement. Ever seen an eight foot tall Cindy Sherman? It'll blow you away!

 

Cheers, Arturo