Re: Leicaphilia

[Oddmund Garvik <garvik@i-t.fr>]

Donal Philby wrote:

>Photography is the communication for the masses (listening, Oddmund??),
>a way to move people across languages and cultures.  And I'd rather have
>my dogeared copy of the "Family of Man" or the "Creation" by Ernst Haas
>that I can haul down to the local coffee house and get lost in than any
>number of "original" prints hanging in my home.    

Photography is for sure communication for the masses, but if it doesn't
serve the masses, or change anything, it is devoid of meaning. I don't
think necessarily there is a conflict between offset prints in books and
"original" darkroom prints. We need both supports. Real prints are more
beautiful, but also more exclusive and often more expensive. 

In France we have a nice series of books called "Photo Poche", which is
very handy: Pocket size, not expensive, nicely printed books presenting one
author, or on a theme. I always bring one or two of these together with a
book of poetry, when I leave for a while. (Charles Bukowski is a great poet
when you are travelling!).

There are pictures everywhere, and a lot of "pollution". We live in a
picture world with a lot of stereotype and senseless images. Well, there is
a kind of sense, of course...brain washing us and making "good" consumers
out of us. It is difficult to get rid of those images. If you close your
eyes, you stumble, if you look at them, you get influenced. It is pure
witchcraft!  

I am not sure if I agree with Ted Grant saying that "It almost doesn't
matter what the subject is, it is just get out there with that damn camera
and start shooting everything and anything that moves or doesn't." For me
the image in itself is not interesting. If you don't have a clear idea and
don't know what to select according to your idea, you never make good
pictures, or just by miracle. And you end up contributing to the image
pollution.

There are a lot of "nice" original prints and books around. The problem is
that you get tired of these nice, licked, well composed images. There are
no message in them. No deeper universal identity. There are only emptiness.
Such images just contribute to the general feeling of emptiness in the
Western world. The Sterility Syndrome. 
 
>The iconic images--like the street execution in Viet Nam by
>Eddie Adams or the Kissing photos of Eisenstadt or Doisneau (sp?)--that
>have become part of our cultural mythology, not because they are
>precious work of art, but because they are both powerful and SEEN via
>mass media.

These images have an universal message, they are human. I like to see such
images on walls, in books, in magazines, in newspapers and why not on TV.
The problem is that we don't see them very often. They don't serve a
mercantile purpose. And sometimes they are too controversial for their
time. We will have to wait for them.

If you try to make such images yourself, you will be starving and you will
have to fight as hell to published the fruit of your efforts. If you are
honest and straight, it is almost an impossible mission.

Oddmund