On The Release Of Sebastiao Salgado's "Genesis" As A Book

[johnbuckley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

John, I agree they're gorgeous.

 

But I think we may be doing him a disservice here. I think his intentions are more serious than simply making some gorgeous photos. So questions about the medium he chooses have to deal with how they serve his purpose, and there's a respectable (though not necessarily correct) argument that says colour may have been a more appropriate choice for this particular series.

 

The criticisms I have read hinge on this: that the photography of people who perhaps haven't been photographed before and whose way of life may be under threat to such an extent that they may be considered "transient" in the most ominous sense of the word, demand the most serious possible presentation. And that may mean foregoing some of the traditional "picturesque and powerful" values of B&W photography and placing them firmly in a modern, contemporary context, which, the argument goes, requires colour. You may not agree, and you'd be in good company because neither did Salgado, who is, if nothing else, a serious photographer.

 

This is an extremely subjective matter and I can instantly think of many strong reasons for preferring B&W, and also some good ones for preferring colour. But of course it is Salgado's choice to make, not ours.

 

But the choice of colour or B&W is a legitimate and, I think, interesting element of the series to discuss.

 

Peter - you raise good points. The most elaborate critique of Salgado, as I've read it over the years, is that even though he tends to depict people in fairly wretched circumstances (Workers, Migrations, Other Americas, The Sahel), his work is, in fact, invariably gorgeous. This argument often comes from the Left, which is interesting since Salgado is a man of the Left. I've never bought that argument, because he really has called attention to starvation in the Sahel, to the plight of refugees, etc, even as he makes images that look lovely in books, and sometimes on walls.

 

With Genesis, he is explicitly depicting beauty, in landscapes, animals, and people. His choice of black and white, to me, is a tougher choice to make, as I think they'd perhaps be objectively more beautiful in color, and yet the images are more powerful because of they are not! Just my opinion. But as you say, his too! Cheers, JB

[Peter H]

Interesting John. Thanks for another thoughtful reply.

 

I don't think the criticisms I've read are concerned with the fact (and I believe it is a fact!) that they look gorgeous. I think we all acknowledge that this is his way of bringing things to our attention, and if they were less eye-catchingly beautiful he probably wouldn't have had a fraction of the success he's had in bringing difficult subjects to the attention of the general public, often people who may not otherwise know about or be interested in his subjects.

 

Neither is the criticism that they would be more gorgeous if they were in colour, because I've not read or heard anyone seriously suggest that. In fact, its quite the reverse. There are many people who believe that B&W is more picturesque than colour which is more mundane and matter-of-fact, and therefore in the hands of an expert technician like Salgado, B&W can tend to shift attention from the hard underlying reality of an unpalatable truth and concentrate it on the visual aspects above all else. In other words, there's a risk that rather than being affected by the appalling story underlying the subject, we simply end up thinking "how beautiful" instead, perhaps with a passing sense of regret as an aftertaste, but no more.

 

I'm not at all sure I agree with this entirely, because I suspect most viewers of these photos go on to think a great deal more about the subject than simply what it looks like.

 

But I do feel that it is a risk he takes, and that whilst they are undeniably beautiful and therefore attention-grabbing, in the best way and for the best reasons, they do not have the same sort of impact and direct power that a less exquisite, more visceral colour photo would have: one that confronts the horrible fact that mundane indifference is often at the heart of the tragedies he records.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest malland]

The strongest and, some would say the harshest, criticism of Salgado is this New Yorker article by Ingrid Sischy, which can be downloaded here as a pdf file. I've linked this before in another thread, but thought it could be of interest for the discussion here. The link comes from a web page for a photography course.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Lanka Footsteps [M-Monochrom/Sri Lanka]

[Peter H]

Thanks very much indeed for the link Mitch. I'd missed it the first time around.

 

Its fascinating. I don't agree with everything the author says, but I have a great deal of sympathy with her point of view.

 

The conflicts (if that is what they are) between beauty and meaning, or beauty and truth, or beauty and stimulus are crucially important in many aspects of photography and particularly those with an serious journalistic purpose, and I certainly think Salgado's work deserve to be taken seriously and not just looked at as pretty pictures. Which is a large part of her point and also what I was talking about in the posts above.

 

I think she was slightly harsh on Salgado, but given that she wrote that article 22 years ago I believe, many of her points are even more valid now, and are definitely worth taking seriously even if you don't agree with them.

[Guest malland]

Peter, yes, I think these are interesting issues to think about. For, example how would one look at Nachtwey in comparison to Salgado in this respect; and what are the implications for "concerned photography"?

 

—Mitch/Paris

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)"]Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)[/url]

[pico]

Ingrid Sischy's piece is marvelous because it is real criticism which by its nature does not focus upon qualifying content as good or bad photography, but the particular photographs and the photographer's place in history.

 

Grave criticisms were made of W. Eugene Smith's work, which in particular named his work as too pretty for the tragedy of the subject, and in some cases falsified images. I am glad that Sischy made the contrast. I don't see Smith's attitude in Salgado's work.

Edited May 5, 2013 by pico

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mitch, its really interesting that you mention James Nachtwey, and ask how they may compare.

 

In some ways he reminds me of Salgado; they produce powerful images that bring us close to things most of us don't know much about. They deal with tough subjects, they are brave and brilliant photographers with a conscience. They both achieve a sort of intimacy with their subject, but this is an area where the differences between them can become quite stark. I feel Nachtwey is less concerned with producing a strikingly beautiful image than Salgado is. Whether that means he is actually more concerned with the subject matter than Salgado is questionable, though some have asserted it to be the case. But it does create that impression for me.

 

Nachtwey does not restrict himself to B&W either, and its hard to imagine that the 9/11 series of photographs for example could possibly have any greater impact if they were in B&W, or were more "beautiful". My own reaction is that Nachtwey's are closer to the experience I imagine Iwould have had had I been in his shoes: he is my infinitely braver and more talented surrogate. Salgado, in producing such exquisite crafted pictures, and his insistence in sticking to B&W, feels a degree more detached.

 

I can imagine many of Salgado's photos hanging on the walls of homes owned by people of taste and sensitivity. Nachtwey's less so, and to my personal taste, this is to his credit.

 

I feel Nachtwey puts his hand in the fire on our behalf, where Salgado stands back a little, choosing the best angle for us.

 

But they both help us see things we otherwise couldn't, so Im not trying to suggest one is "better" than the other. But they certainly feel quite different to me.

[Guest malland]

Powerful and articulate stuff, Peter. I feel the same way you do. Salgado sometimes sentimentalizes while Nachtwey is more stark and direct: I found it hard to look as his book, Ineferno. WIth Salgado, it's as he's trying to create myth but sometime only reaches decoration, but I cannot express this as well as Sischy does — and I don't really know anything about his work of the last 15 years, and haven't seen Genesis. When I first saw a Salgado exhibition, I was blown away by the B&W tones of his pictures, but the more I looked at them subsequently the less interesting I found them below the surface. WIth a great photographer perhaps it's should be the other way round. That is not to say that I don't appreciate some of his work.

 

—Mitch/Paris

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

Edited May 5, 2013 by malland

[IkarusJohn]

Nachtwey and Salgado fill different niches - Nachtwey is a photojournalist whose roll in life is to record sad and unpleasant things, and to put them before us, perhaps to shock, but more to stimulate a moral response to an outrage; Salgado is an environmentalist, recording the world and the natural environment and presenting it to us in a way which makes us want to preserve it. Flip sides of the same coin at best.

 

I can make no comment on the quality of the images as I would need to see the prints in the flesh (so to speak), and I doubt I could look at too many of Nachtwey's prints, if Im honest. I see it as being a bit like reminding ourselves of any horror of human conflict - the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, the Great Leap Forward, Stalin's purges, the Rwanda.Burundi conflict to name but a few. I haven't become inured to such horrors, and I don't need to be reminded of them everyday.

 

I can look at Salgado everyday.

 

Cheers

John

[Wallyvision]

I'm a big fan of Salgado's work but must concur with many of the critical observations noted in this thread. Notably, that his work may be too pretty to convey the message he intends. That is an oversimplification but it's the best I can come up with considering my limited critical skills.

 

I received my copy of "Genesis" yesterday and after a cursory look I must agree with those who found the format off putting. I think the work would have been better served with a horizontal rather than vertical format and with smaller images to avoid printing across the crease. My other caveat is that there are so many images to illustrate the particular points that one gets image overload. Many fewer images would have gotten the message across more succinctly. Just my humble opinion.

[Chuck Albertson]

To my knowledge, he's never had a color photo published. Black and white is all he does. And while I love color, what he does with monochrome is gorgeous.

 

Back in the day (1981), he was photographing Reagan when he was plugged by John Hinckley. The take was in color.

[FrozenInTime]

I received my copy of "Genesis" yesterday and after a cursory look I must agree with those who found the format off putting. I think the work would have been better served with a horizontal rather than vertical format and with smaller images to avoid printing across the crease.

 

Now that mine has arrived, it lives up to my worst fears:

The destruction of two thirds or more of the images by over leaf printing is maddening - I cannot bear to spent any time on those pages

 

How to we get this message across to the industry ?

[zlatkob]

The strongest and, some would say the harshest, criticism of Salgado is this New Yorker article by Ingrid Sischy, which can be downloaded here as a pdf file. I've linked this before in another thread, but thought it could be of interest for the discussion here.

 

As I wrote in the other thread ... I disagree with her hatchet job of a "review". Sischy finds fault with just about every detail of Salgado's work, including the way people talk about it. In summary, she finds that Salgado is good at what he does, but that he does everything wrong. She even criticizes him for choosing strong subjects. Perhaps Sischy can show us the proper way to do photography? Judging from her criticism, it would involve the avoidance of symbols, emotions and publicity.

[pico]

Now that mine has arrived, it lives up to my worst fears:

The destruction of two thirds or more of the images by over leaf printing is maddening - I cannot bear to spent any time on those pages

 

How to we get this message across to the industry ?

 

The idiot book designers don't care about the final viewing experience. They only look at the flat layout design on a big monitor, and judge their little clique by the same metrics.

[wattsy]

The idiot book designers don't care about the final viewing experience. They only look at the flat layout design on a big monitor

 

Genesis, like some of Salgado's earlier books, was designed by his wife (and long term business collaborator). I doubt that Mrs Salgado is an idiot and I think it is pretty unlikely that she (or Salgado himself) "only look[ed] at the flat layout design on a big monitor". I imagine that the book is exactly how they both intended it to be.

[MarkP]

I love Salgado's work.

I hate photographic books where the images are over-leaf printed.

I agree that the book should have been in horizontal format.

[Guest malland]

As I wrote in the other thread ... I disagree with her hatchet job of a "review". Sischy finds fault with just about every detail of Salgado's work, including the way people talk about it. In summary, she finds that Salgado is good at what he does, but that he does everything wrong. She even criticizes him for choosing strong subjects. Perhaps Sischy can show us the proper way to do photography? Judging from her criticism, it would involve the avoidance of symbols, emotions and publicity.

Sischy's article is not a hatchet job: it's a serious and perceptive critique, written in 1991, in which her main thesis is that Salgdo was trying to formulate an "educational vehicle or calls to action" but that "this kind of endeavor requires an El Greco or a Goya" and that though Salgado is "treated as such a visionary regrettably he isn't."

 

The hatchet job is your dismissing her critique in a couple of one-liners. Though one may not agree with her, the article deserves serious discussion to contradict, not one-liners. It's certainly worthwhile to read and think about rather than to dismiss it out of hand.

 

—Mitch/Paris

[sblitz]

Interesting about the book. I did see the exhibit in London and thought it was great. Considered buying the book but it was too big and heavy to take back. And for some reason books are generally cheaper in the US anyway. I do urge anyone who can to go see the exhibit. Of not comes to NYC I will see it again. I am not usually in awe of photo exhibits. Rarely see shots that seem worthy of the wall space than others I have seen posted here. Cannot say that about this exhibit. 'Nuff said

[pico]

Genesis, like some of Salgado's earlier books, was designed by his wife (and long term business collaborator). I doubt that Mrs Salgado is an idiot

 

It is what she does that matters, not what we think she does. The printing across the fold is a disaster unless the intention was to spoil the viewing experience.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stephan_w]

for 28 £ ?

 

what size does it have? as I ' m just lurking around the taschen edition :-)