Hockney: “My main argument was that a photograph could not be looked at for a long time…You can’t look at most photos for more than, say, thirty seconds. It has nothing to do with the subject matter.”
He goes on and on: “[P]hotography is all right if you don’t mind looking at the world from the point of view of a paralyzed cyclops–for a split second.”
He almost perfect echoes your words when you say “…thereâ€™s no reason to linger. You canâ€™t stand back and get a new view. You canâ€™t lean-in close to examine the infiniteness of its detail. Youâ€™re not sharing its air. Everythingâ€™s perfectly sealed, at armâ€™s length.”
You can read the whole article in Weschler’s wonderful collection “Vermeer in Bosnia.”]]>
On photo books, I’ve been impressed by the small-edition quality of two titles from jandlbooks.com; the Mike Slack book (an old fave) and the Gus Powell book (a new fave).]]>
In other words doing a thought experiment, if somehow there were no digital photography and everything else were the same, I think we’d be singing the same sort of lament.
PS: on photo books — every spare penny is right, they are so very expensive. If you are a book addict, you have to put up with the small format, low production value editions which also militate against lingering and savouring.]]>
I’m just concerned about this concept of “overlooking” and how more more more isn’t necessarily a win. There’s something cranky in what I’ve said — and it’s probably about my own resistance to the cultural shift being dictated by digital’s pace.
I like to look and linger. I like taking time with things (anything, really) and I like to think. I feel like I can do this better by looking at photography in books or on a wall; not on the Interweb. And I say this knowing the small part I play in increasing the digital glut.]]>
I wonder if ‘film’ won’t be a saner, more interesting place once the dust settles?