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

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

i always thought that nachtwey and salgado both "packaged pathos." what distinctions would you make between the two?

 

disclaimer: i've disapproved of nachtwey ever since 9/11.

In my view, their photography is very different. From what I've seen of Nachtwey's work, he does not sentimentalize the subject, which is what If feel that Sischy identifies well in her article on Salgado. Now, my understanding is that Nachtwey has been criticized for creating "beautiful form" from misery, carnage and death — but I haven't read any of these articles that crticize his aesthetization of tragedy. In any case, I feel that sentimentalization takes us away from truth.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

[Peter H]

I didn't see the show, but I have to ask, at what point does a print get too big or too expensive to remain tasteful? Is it wrong for photojournalism to become big art? Should it only be small art, or not art at all?

 

If photographers want their photographs to get noticed, one way is to make them very large and expensive. If photojournalists want to survive, it is wise to look for income beyond the small amounts they get from news media.

 

Few people have the funds or the space to collect $5,000 4x6-foot prints, but for some people $5K is a very small amount. If they have a large art budget, why only offer them smaller and less expensive prints?

 

I'm impressed that Salgado is offering a collector's edition of Genesis for $3K to $9K. That is way beyond the budget of the people who are buying the regular edition for $60, which itself is not cheap. But I say, why not? More power to him.

 

We've disagreed over much in this discussion, but I agree with you here. And his photos get published in various forms, so no one is prevented from seeing them if they wish to.

 

There are certainly times when commercialism conflicts with reportage, and where exploitation masquerades as concern, but I don't think this applies to Salgado at all: quite the reverse, in fact.

[Advertisement]

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

[raizans]

In my view, their photography is very different. From what I've seen of Nachtwey's work, he does not sentimentalize the subject, which is what If feel that Sischy identifies well in her article on Salgado. Now, my understanding is that Nachtwey has been criticized for creating "beautiful form" from misery, carnage and death — but I haven't read any of these articles that crticize his aesthetization of tragedy. In any case, I feel that sentimentalization takes us away from truth.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Bangkok Hysteria (download link for book project)

 

Hmm...the Romantics thought sentimentality led to moral truth, and if there ever was a Romantic photojournalist, it's Nachtwey!

[IkarusJohn]

John,

 

My guess is, the second time round of viewing both volumes would be even better.

Give it a day or two.

 

Ivan,

 

I had friends around for dinner last night (Cataplana - very nice!), and we worked our way through Vol 1.

 

You're right. The images are astonishing, and the quality of printing beautiful.

 

Cheers

John

[charlesphoto99]

I didn't see the show, but I have to ask, at what point does a print get too big or too expensive to remain tasteful? Is it wrong for photojournalism to become big art? Should it only be small art, or not art at all?

 

If photographers want their photographs to get noticed, one way is to make them very large and expensive. If photojournalists want to survive, it is wise to look for income beyond the small amounts they get from news media.

 

Few people have the funds or the space to collect $5,000 4x6-foot prints, but for some people $5K is a very small amount. If they have a large art budget, why only offer them smaller and less expensive prints?

 

I'm impressed that Salgado is offering a collector's edition of Genesis for $3K to $9K. That is way beyond the budget of the people who are buying the regular edition for $60, which itself is not cheap. But I say, why not? More power to him.

 

I agree to a point. But one has to ask themselves at what point does the work itself lose it's power by getting bigger (or conversely smaller for that matter)? Some of Nachtwey's images were quite powerful large size in the show, esp ones of torn landscapes or large groups of people (such as veiled women in Iran, etc). But the intimate shots of junkies in the back streets of Pakistan just reeked of exploitation at that size - they deserved better.

 

I had the same problem with a Eugene Richards retrospective show at the Leica gallery in NY a number of years back. Most of the show was 11X14 and 16X20 except for a handful of images at 30X40 which he chose to be the most disturbing. It didn't work, and made me long to see those images smaller and more intimate, and actually some of his more warmer images larger. There needs to be a balance otherwise it's just doom and gloom for the sake of shocking the viewer instead of compelling them to view the images and connect with them in a more intimate way.

[pico]

In my view, their photography is very different. From what I've seen of Nachtwey's work, he does not sentimentalize the subject, [...]

 

When I was a bit younger and viewed Nachtwey's work a little voice in my unfortunate classically educated mind protests with "no class, no aesthetic". But now as a military veteran I have a different view.

 

Just for a minute consider the likelihood that some of Nachtwey's photos have been rejected by himself or his caring editors because they drifted into sentimental-LIKE imagery.

 

The man has the talent to make grief beautiful but he, and his editor(s) choose otherwise.

 

He has my respect.

[gjames9142]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The late Ragubir Singh, a fine photographer, once described Salgado to me as" the Ansel Adams of poverty"', which pretty much sums it up for me. Of course, there will be some for whom that would be a compliment.

[Peter H]

The late Ragubir Singh, a fine photographer, once described Salgado to me as" the Ansel Adams of poverty"', which pretty much sums it up for me. Of course, there will be some for whom that would be a compliment.

 

[IkarusJohn]

The late Ragubir Singh, a fine photographer, once described Salgado to me as" the Ansel Adams of poverty"', which pretty much sums it up for me. Of course, there will be some for whom that would be a compliment.

 

Glib.

[Peter H]

Glib.

 

Indeed.

 

But quite amusing.

[topoxforddoc]

I went to the show yesterday, when I was in London for a meeting. It was just jaw dropping! I walked around the exhibits 5-6 times, sat down on every seat and felt as I was on a pilgrimage. I’m not remotely interested in discussing environmental issues or which photographer I prefer. I can just tell you that the real prints make the book look ordinary. I don’t mean that the images are ordinary in their artistic way. It’s just that the exhibition prints are massive and flawless. Yes, the book is flawed, but good. But the huge prints are just beautiful.

What was really interesting was that I much preferred the images shot on film, compared to his new stuff shot on a Canon (I believe). They were all printed on Ilford Galerie Gold Silk - ie not a single true wet print on show.The first image you will see is the one on pages 20-21 (the large iceberg); it is enormous. It reminds me of an ice Camelot - King Arthur’s castle made of ice on a rocky outcrop.

I’m going back again - very soon!

[aesop]

I went to the show yesterday, when I was in London for a meeting. It was just jaw dropping! I walked around the exhibits 5-6 times, sat down on every seat and felt as I was on a pilgrimage. I’m not remotely interested in discussing environmental issues or which photographer I prefer. I can just tell you that the real prints make the book look ordinary. I don’t mean that the images are ordinary in their artistic way. It’s just that the exhibition prints are massive and flawless. Yes, the book is flawed, but good. But the huge prints are just beautiful.

What was really interesting was that I much preferred the images shot on film, compared to his new stuff shot on a Canon (I believe). They were all printed on Ilford Galerie Gold Silk - ie not a single true wet print on show.The first image you will see is the one on pages 20-21 (the large iceberg); it is enormous. It reminds me of an ice Camelot - King Arthur’s castle made of ice on a rocky outcrop.

I’m going back again - very soon!

 

 

...going back again, Charlie? I believe I know precisely where you're coming from. Enjoy.

[sblitz]

Charlie -- I saw the show a few weeks back in London and feel/felt exactly the same. Hoping it travels to NYC in the not too distant future, would love to see again with friends. Steve

[Falstaff]

I too was in London for a few days last week and went to the exhibition - and very glad I did.

To put it in context, I normally gravitate towards the Klein, Winogrand type of photography rather than Salgado, and yet I found that there was a majesty to his work.

I also spent time leafing through his book, and although there are images which go across the spine of the book, if you like his images, it's worth in investing in the book - I will.

Falstaff

[Leicafanatics]

That depends!

second that...

[johnbuckley]

For folks in the States: the only place the images are showing, I believe, is the Peter Fetterman Gallery in LA. Peter is Salgado's principal gallerist. The show is coming next year to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.

 

I don't want to restart the debate, but I did succumb to buying the two volume "Sumo" edition. It is ridiculously large and hard to view, unless you live in a castle. But those images, blown up large, are quite incredible.

[peter_n]

The show is coming next year to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.

Great news!

[MarkP]

Well I just was given a copy. Spectacular and breathtaking photography.

People can criticise all they like but I'd be happy if I could put together a body of work like that.

 

But who is the moron who approved the format of the book such as each photograph is bisected by the binding? It is a travesty

[wattsy]

But who is the moron who approved the format of the book such as each photograph is bisected by the binding?

 

Salgado's wife designed the book. I doubt she is a moron.

The format is not ideal but, as a trade-off between book size (and format) and the display size of the photographs, I'm not sure it is such a bad idea to run the photos across the gutter.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[MarkP]

His wife . Thanks for clarifying that Ian.

 

Nevertheless, I still think that it is unforgivable to print across the fold, or at least not to have an other edition of one plate per page.