Ralph Gibson - Master Fine Art Photographer
damonwebster asked:
With an amazing viewpoint in black and white photography for decades, this master has never stopped learning, exploring, growing in his life and work. We caught up with him in NYC at the Lucies in Oct. and he passed on some info and advice you want to hear.
February 19th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I totally agree he really is a genius photographer! I jus get tired of some the ol photographers stuck in film ! hey my fave togs were back in the early 1900s!
February 20th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
It’s about developing your eye, not if you use digitial or film. You still have to have a good eye and then learn to use those tools. If you study his images, you can learn about the zone system too and see how he uses those zones. It’s really interesting.
February 21st, 2009 at 12:09 am
thank you
February 21st, 2009 at 9:31 am
The first time I heard the Infinite Monkey Theory was 10 years ago… a painter that saying that if you give (film) cameras to monkeys, eventually some will end up taking good photos. If cats can paint I guess monkeys can take photos!
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:42 am
By the way…even Jessica Lange takes great films photos and publishes phto books…Also Jeff Bridges… and Andy Summers!!!!!! I guess shooting film is not so difficult after all!!!!!!
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 am
the Infinite Monkey Theorum: Monkeys don’t go to the MoMA, nor the Metropolitan, nor Chelsea, so they don’t know about Andreas Gursky, Thomas Ruff and others using digital photography… and each having dozens of monographs published about their work. I forgot! monkeys don’t read nor go to bookstores either!!!!!
February 26th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
A wonderful interview. His track record and portfolio speaks for itself. Regarding his mention of the use of film and the lack of a digital masterpiece, I couldn’t agree more. There’s something called the Infinite Monkey Theorum; give enough monkeys digital cameras and they’ll end up creating a masterpiece. It takes skill to shoot film and a gift to create a masterpiece with it.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:27 am
please ! he clearly doesnt know **** ! well i take that back he is an old fashion guy and doesnt like change !!! art is art digital or film !! if he thinks he created masterpieces cuz he used film !! stupid !! foolish ! as a matter of fact the number of real good artists are alive today and alot of them are photographers ! im not a photographer im an artist with a camera ! i think some of the best photography is happening as we speak !! I love his work ! just get over ur ego man !
March 5th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Ralph is a master of photography, but he says he doesn’t know any masters of digital photography… that is ignorance or at least being miss-informed…nevertheless I love his work.
March 7th, 2009 at 12:10 am
This would be a little off-topic, but you’re making this a ‘film vs digital’ debate. I’m not hearing Ralph speak ignorantly about the new medium, but I’ve heard alot of digital enthusiasts speak with aversion and fear about film. It’s still about what you say, not how. What does the period have to do with it? It’s that artists individual message - I’m sure he doesn’t care how he’s seen on the timeline….
March 9th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Compare a **** by Michelangelo, to a **** by Picasso, or compare a figure by Raphael to a figure by Goya or by Cindy Sherman (by the way, she also has gone digital).
It is not about Gibson doing film or digital, the irony is in the aversion of some film photographers to digital. Artists or photographers working with digital do not speak with aversion, fear or ignorance about film; Gibson speaks with ignorance about digital photography .
March 12th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
“So he doesn’t do digital. It’s what you SAY not HOW you say it. Mediums come and go.”
This shows an ignorance of art history. How you say it, it’s as much a part in the development of art as meaning. If you notice the development of art in the last 2500 years, although subject matters and intentions may sometimes stay the same(one example , the figure as a subject matter) what differentiates periods is also the HOW.
March 14th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Ralph, you have it wrong. Content is what counts not film or digital.
Gerrythetailor
March 17th, 2009 at 2:37 am
“….When an artist is not able to accept new advances in the medium it usually means that the artist is not keeping in touch with the avant garde of his time….”
Did you catch what he said at 6:30 about being true to yourself as an artist?
So he doesn’t do digital. It’s what you SAY not HOW you say it. Mediums come and go.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:25 am
There are many masters of digital photography…
Thomas Ruff among others…
When an artist is not able to accept new advances in the medium it usually means that the artist is not keeping in touch with the avant garde of his time.
March 20th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I agree with the sentiment of this comment despite being influenced by this guy when I started 20 years ago. Unfortunatly it seems to be human nature to raise a few people up way beyond their true acheivement and ignore everyone else, many of whom would produce good work (better?) given the chance. It’s some kind of mass ego/fear effect…
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:10 am
andreas gursky digitally manipulates his photos;
many of the artists working w/ photography are working digitally. Do people here go to galleries??
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:48 pm
He’s so true when he says ‘I don’t know any great masters of digital photography’. Although digital photography is a relevant and logical devlopment of photography it isn’t near as artistic or valuebale then the old analogue photography. Photography with telephone? Please.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:39 am
A brilliant photographer, brilliant. No one anymore is doing or seeing what he does. He is a link to a style and philosophy of photography that is real and valuable. Ralph becomes more valuable as the years pass. Watch his physical reaction when he mentions Weston as an influence. Perhaps the greatest of all, he knows the debt we all have. Peace.
March 24th, 2009 at 11:50 am
A big ego who is so into himself over the years
it gets just worse and worse ,in any event his bank account matches his ego from fools that
collect this simplistic work.
As a publisher of other greater photogs he was much better but that was the last time this ham was doing anything other than his own spiel.
If you tell people you are great some will believe you.
He really was influenced by some of the
guys and gals he published but would not
acknowledge that,even on his deathbed.
March 25th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Could you explain how he is great and what he has actually accomplished. The discipline of photography will never have a master, because there is nothing to master, transcend, graduate, … . Painting, on the other hand, does. I’m claiming to be the first and only master of the discipline of painting, who transcended the object, graduated the subject, … . Cheers!!!
March 27th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Great man