Re: Ralph Gibson--Leica photographer

[Charles Dunlap <cdunlap@rupture.ucsc.edu>]

>Anyone have a similar reaction (to Gibson, let's not
>burn bandwidth on an extended music-criticism thread), or am I just a
>uniquely crotchety crank?
>
>Ah well.  Chacun a son go=FBt.
>
>-Jeff

As the originator of the thread and a newcomer to Gibson I'll add my opinion=
=2E

1) I've only seen his web site. It's well done and shows two collections of
photographs.

2) From what I've seen I won't be buying any Ralph Gibson books to add to
my small collection of Diane Arbus, HCB, Ansel Adams, Paul Strand, and a
couple of others. There are several other photographers whose books I will
buy (Salgado is at the top of that list), but I don't think Gibson will be
among them.

3) My impression was along the line of yours. I'm rarely greatly moved by
heavily intellectual photography. Intellectual is a poor word; what I mean
is photography that has little heart and soul and relies only on its makers
desire to convey an idea. In Gibson's case this seems to center on the
visual correlations between otherwise unrelated objects. A shadow on one
side of town can be photographed to be redolent of a hand and a cane
photographed two years later. Ok, that demonstrates an active imagination,
a mind that holds shapes and shadows in memory and waits 'til it finds a
compliment. But it is not an exciting abstraction. It seems sterile to me.
It seems more like an excercise, like playing scales, rather than a full
performance. We're back to music again. Gibson's photos do not sing for me.

- -Charlie