Ralph Gibson's style of photography

[nesrani]

And, some of his 360 pans are amazing (the ones done in crowds, the landscape ones don't do very much for me).

[alfie wang]

I enjoy Ralph Gibson photography mainly because I was an English major and the photographs remind me a solid John Ashbery poem with the enigmatic aspects of life or something like James Joyce.

 

It's very postmodern and nothing like Eugene Richards. I wouldn't ever call Gibson's work photojournalism except for the early stuff. Apparently he started off as a Winogrand aspirant (which I'm trying to become a digital version of that one :p) and become more abstract progressive.

 

I suggest that you ought to pick up a book of the New York School of poets and it will click in your time what kinda literature Gibson has been reading in the Navy :)... Like John Ashbery's Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror.

[Robin Smith]

As a cynical person, I think Gibson has a fine talent. I don't like all of it, but I agree with the others that he has a focussed vision. This is often a key to success, he is no jack of all trades. Not for him the photo of a feeding bear or his wife in front of the Eiffel Tower (well if he takes them he doesn't show us). His vision is artistic with a capital A. His statements, as Sal pointed out are often nonsensical, but much critiques by curatorial types and artists are waffling which do make no sense - sometimes though the statements sound good or they sound like something out of "Pseuds Corner". The difficulty is that we all have to "say something" about an image in the end - and usually there is not much to say really - you saw it and you took it. Something "chimed" with something inside you. I could never take photos like Gibson, which is all to the good. I think as daniel (sans D) says Leica are rather lucky to "have him".

[eliot]

I first saw some of Ralph Gibson's work in a leica Fotographie magazine. It was quite unusual compared to that of the other photographers: a fishhead, two cards, some formal clothing. So unusual that I remeber it well. I would say Gibson has an unusual vision and style. His work is definitely not for everyone, but I like it.

[mark_ci]

I don't think comparisons between Eggleston and Gibson are particularly apt. They don't have much in common.

 

Eggleston was very conceptual. (I say "was" because I don't know what he's doing these days). Part of what he was trying to do was break with existing ideas of what art is and what photography should look like. Not a lot different from avante garde conceptual artists (e.g. Yoko Ono) in other fields. If you don't "get" Eggleston you might be right: it may be that there's nothing there. A lot of thoughtful people have come to that conclusion, but creating that kind of debate is part of what he was trying to do.

 

Gibson has some postmodern influences (who doesn't these days) but he's almost at the other end of the scale. His work is very accessible: his eye for composition is amazing, his command of the materials is total, and his prints are gorgeous. In contrast to Eggleston, no one but a fool would mistake a Gibson photo for a snapshot. If you don't "get" him, the problem is on your end, because there's most definitely something there, and it's pretty obvious. Keep looking.

 

What there doesn't seem to be a lot of in this thread is an understanding of the difference between liking and appreciating. Art can be good, even great, without necessarily being to your taste.

 

Citizen Kane isn't my favorite movie. I do understand why it's important and appreciate its flashes of brilliance, though. I enjoy watching it in a difference sense than movies I like better: I study it.

 

I can't stand to listen to most progressive rock, but I admire those groups in a way for being willing to experiment, and recognize that most of them could play circles around groups I like much better.

 

Likwise Led Zeppelin isn't my favorite group, but nobody who knows anything about rock music can question their astounding talent, originality or influence.

[cd thacker]

Glad to see someone here - Albert Wang - shares my love for John Ashbery. Many, myself included, say that he is the finest poet working in English; certainly he is the most fun to read. But expecting people who don't get Gibson to be gotten there via Ashbery, is like expecting people to arrive at an appreciation of Beethoven (or Coltrane) by reading Neitzsche - they may have a great deal in common, but not the least of what they share is certain requirements for audience.<P>

 

<I>Led Zeppelin isn't my favorite group, but nobody who knows anything about rock music can question their astounding talent, originality or influence.</I><P>

 

I agree with everything Mark C. said in his statement. But I take every opportunity of pointing out that most of Led Zeppelin's catalog was filched, word for word and lick for lick, from early twentieth century American "race" records.

[cd thacker]

Actually, I don't agree with quite everything Mark C. said - Eggleston appeared perhaps, at one time, to be conceptual, but I really see his work now as meditative, even highly spiritual; and in that sense it has something in common with Gibson, even if it is also more formalist, maybe, than Gibson. It is this strange spiritual quality that is so powerful in Eggleston's work and that defines its success.

[msitaraman]

"But I take every opportunity of pointing out that most of Led Zeppelin's catalog was filched, word for word and lick for lick, from early twentieth century American "race" records"

 

Nooooo! Say it ain't so!! I would have never guessed that all those druidic references were in vogue in early 20th century African American music.

 

;-)

[cd thacker]

You heard it here first.

[nesrani]

I merely brought Eggleston into the fray because he is another photographer who people love to revile; I would never suggest that E and Gibson have anything in common.

<p>

My feeling about Eggleston is that in his case, colour is the message. I don't really know how to express it, but light and colour can be powerful signifiers and in Eggleston's case I think his choice of the mundane, undramatic, what is before our eyes every day, is intended to allow the <i>visual space</i> (colour and light, what we usually pass over in our concern with the objects that inhabit that space) to come to the fore. The result is to create a fracture in our normal way of looking, to displace its focus and in doing so, to give a new life to the objects themselves. They are lifted out of the ordinary and present themselves as <i>dinge an sich</i> (if such a category is even conceivable). Another way of saying it would be that he unveils the <i>aseity of the everyday</i> (a very post-theological construct!), by returning it to it's own space, rather than the space of meanings we assign to it. [Of course, whether he would subscribe to any of this himself, I don't know; I'm simply expressing my own rather inarticulate impressions of his work.]

<p>

Gibson, to my eye, seems much more interested in the <i>geometry of things</i>, in a sense the exact opposite of Eggleston. He exalts the particularity of objects, and in terms of what I see as Eggleston's intention, his work is far less ambitious.

<p>

'Nuff said.

[cd thacker]

<I>Aseity (Latin a, from; se, itself: ens a se) is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. It will be easily understood that this property belongs, and can belong only, to God.</I><P>

-- from the <a href=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01774b.htm>Catholic Encyclopedia</a><P>

 

Rob -<P>

 

Your comments have the same thoughtful, satisfying, and intelligent nature as your photos . No surprize there, I suppose. In any event, you've hit the nail on the head-in-itself with your evaluation of Eggleston. In fact, permit me to say that I've never seen an evaluation of his work that is so dead on. You exactly capture what it is that is so strong in him. I do find, though, that, despite his seeming elacrity in accomplishing this, it is far more ambitious (see <I>God</I>, above) than is Gibson's (admitedly pleasing) fixation with form and texture.

[cd thacker]

That is, seeming <I>alacrity</I>.

[cd thacker]

<I><U>aseity of the everyday</U> (a very post-theological construct!)</I><P>

 

I think the Hindus in our audience might challenge this; but then again, they might say that Hinduism itself is post-theological. Never mind, then.

[nesrani]

I think (from what I vaguely remember) that Duns Scotus' notion of "quintessence" was a nod towards the divinity of the material world. Which is presumably just a scholastic version of Platonism. I wonder if you could argue that by abstracting the divine to the unique prerogative of God, the "experts in legitimation" of the Catholic Church actually promoted the advance of the sciences, whereas there is a perennial strong current in the visual arts which has always insisted on finding the divine in the material world? But I'm getting way out of my depth here ;-) Back to work.

[msitaraman]

With bait like that, how can I resist? :-)

 

I would have a hard time accepting that the monism of mainsteam Hindusism is post-theological, unless you maintain that theology itself has meaning only in a differentiated, dualistic world view such as that which is central to Western religion. Hmmm, this is getting interesting...I'd better have another look at Eggleston's work. Thanks Rob and Doug. I am one with my Leica now.

[michael_kastner]

I don't like the site's heading (LIGHT YEARS).

[cd thacker]

And perhaps this peculiarity of the Christian church could account for the historical ascendancy of science in Europe? But I am also out of mine - and just now getting off work! Cheers.

[nesrani]

Mani - there is no camera, there is no photographer.... ;-)

[Robin Smith]

Poor Led Zep -- never have been a favorite with the critics. Early Led Zep was very blues and black-type music with often filched bits of blues lyrics. But they moved on into mystical folk and progressive rock with not much of a black influence. So the statement is not fair really, or rather it is certainly not the whole truth by a long chalk.

[mark_ci]

Doug has overstated the filching charge to the point of absurdity. They did nothing different than any group or artist does: build on what came before. Of course they "stole" some licks. Blues has a long tradition of borrowing. It's a limited form, and there are only so many basic things you can do.

 

They weren't good for their lyrics or their licks anyway. Actually one of their many weaknesses was that Plant's lyrics strictly ranged from mediocre to imbecilic, more often the latter . To the extent that they got any of them from early blues men (which isn't much actually), my opinion of early blues men is diminished.

 

Their real genius was in arrangement and production: Page's creation of that thunderous sonic wall. It's too bad it was compromised by an aesthetic that was puerile in so many other ways.

[msitaraman]

Very OT now, Tony, please forgive!

 

Thank you, Mark!

 

My thoughts exactly; I'm afraid irony did not get my point across. To amplify on the filching charge, it is a fact that Jimmy Page, and many others in the British and US blues revival movement in the mid sixties had listened obsessively to 'race records' and later used some of those licks in their own post-blues music; if anything, those early white blues projects, including the Yardbirds, helped spark interest in traditional blues again, bringing fresh infusions of cash to an impoverished segment of the music business. Its true also that this earned a new audience for later bluesmen such as Muddy Waters and B.B. King.

 

The rip-off charge did originate with some black blues players, as they watched mainstream 60s rock become a billion dollar industry in amazement-but it is not a fair one. But there is no question that, say, the Rolling Stones, or Led Zep went far, far beyond their original inspirations. Whether they were artistically more innovative and 'deeper' than their blues forbears is a matter of personal debate. Personally, I think Led Zeppelin (daft druidic references notwithstanding) founded heavy metal with one or two other bands. And they remain the best at it.

 

Now, if only I could place Ralph Gibson in context...

 

;-)

[cd thacker]

Mani's ad hominem answer reflects the "common sense" outlook that most non-blacks took on first hearing that rock music was stolen from American blacks. It was an outlook I shared.<P>

 

until 1999, when, while living in the Bay Area of California, I heard on one of the university raio stations there a documentary on the thefdt of black music. I expected this documentary to consist of the odd lifted lick and borrowed rift, and much ado about general ideas being appropriated (and, as Mani mentions, given a new, and larger, life).<P>

 

What I heard, instead, was, first, a lot of music by Led Zeppelin (and Canned Heat, and others), interspersed with commentary; followed by the original, uncopyrighted versions, recorded on 78 RPM acetates in the 20's and 30's. I was blown away. Song after song was the same - same words, same tunes usually, same orchestration.<P>

 

I didn't feel it enough, however, to simply relay this story here, ad hominem, in response to what's been said. So I went to the experts - the "Photo.net" for Blues music on the web, <a href=http://thebluehighway.com/>The Blue Highway</a>. When I asked for the list of "Led Zeppelin" songs that were stolen, and for the names of the original artists, the answer was not long in coming: <P>

 

<I>Whole Lotta Love- Willie Dixon<BR>

Travelin' Riverside Blues- Robert Johnson<BR>

Bring it on home - Sonny Boy Williamson (not sure if he's the author.)<BR>

When The Levee Breaks - Memphis Minnie<BR>

Nobody's Fault But Mine - Blind Willie Johnson (Traditional tune recorded by Johnson.)<BR>

In My Time of Dyin' - Traditional<BR>

Lemon Song - I don't realy remember this tune but the "Lemon Lyric..." is Robert Johnson<BR>

You Shook Me- Willie Dixon/J.B. Lenoir<BR>

I Can't Quit you Babe- Willie Dixon<BR><P>

 

I am sure there are more. My Zeppelin days have been over for a while. Some of these songs are "now" credited to the writers. Buggs Music was started so Willie Dixon could get credit and royalties from bands like Led Zeppelin and the Stones. The original Zep LP's had no mention of Dixon.</I><P>

 

It's always a good idea to make sure you know what you're talking about - especially when you're talking to someone about their own country. If you don't know, or have no reason, really, for presuming to know, find someone who does. <I>Ad hominem</I> might work for bokeh. History is a different matter. And now back to Ralph Gibson and Leica, if you please.

[msitaraman]

Doug, I've driven this thread OT enough already-I have sent you a couple of emails on the topic.

 

Back to Ralph Gibson indeed.

[msitaraman]

I should add, Doug's facts trump everything else of course. And he is also logical and right in pointing out that my argument is fallacious for being <i>ad hominem</a> in respect to black musicians who felt ripped off. Mere human jealousy, if that's what it was on their part, still cannot controvert their being robbed or uncredited, or other ripoffs having happened.

 

(no more, Tony, no more!)

[travis1]

Sometimes you look at his(Ralph's) works, and you just like it. You can feel it. It strikes a chord. It's hard to explain. Art is hard to explain.

 

I can't say what is good art and what is bad art. I can only say I like Gibson's work, very much.