In conclusion, I feel the same way - but in my case, it's not necessarily the medium or the colour itself. He always has been balancing along the reality/representation vs abstraction axis in his work, and personally, I'm happiest when he remains closer to a grain of (implied) narrative rather than going too abstract. For this reason, I prefer works like the early Black Trilogy (Somnambulist, Deja Vu, Days at Sea) vs something like the Black series (extremely abstract architectural details), even though they're not that far apart in time. Black and white (and grain, heavy shadows hiding detail) allow more content to be maintained and remain somewhat abstract, colour being a step closer to reality. But he also has colour work that remains in that zone I prefer: his Tropical Drift book, some spreads in Brazil, some of the more recent (digital) Sacred Land and even a few images in this book. But as his career and vision developed, he not only drifted to colour, to digital but also towards abstraction. So, I'm not sure what's at play. Is it the medium or the vision? Another thing: In my opinion, this book edit is not that successful. I understand he developed this approach to documenting (his relationship to) a place (Spirit of Burgundy, Brazil), but both suffer from too many images, too loose layout and losing unity by mixing 3-4 different styles. Some sections work well, but then some spreads almost become a guidebook to the region. As a guidebook, this works very well though, I think he captured the region in a sensitive way. But I would still prefer Pharaonic Light (shot in Egypt that has a more unified grainy b&w style).
This is a wonderful photo book. Ralph Gibson is a master and his books are real lessons in photo book editing. Thanks for sharing.
Definitely prefer his grainy black and white film photos vs the color and digital works
In conclusion, I feel the same way - but in my case, it's not necessarily the medium or the colour itself.
He always has been balancing along the reality/representation vs abstraction axis in his work, and personally, I'm happiest when he remains closer to a grain of (implied) narrative rather than going too abstract. For this reason, I prefer works like the early Black Trilogy (Somnambulist, Deja Vu, Days at Sea) vs something like the Black series (extremely abstract architectural details), even though they're not that far apart in time. Black and white (and grain, heavy shadows hiding detail) allow more content to be maintained and remain somewhat abstract, colour being a step closer to reality. But he also has colour work that remains in that zone I prefer: his Tropical Drift book, some spreads in Brazil, some of the more recent (digital) Sacred Land and even a few images in this book. But as his career and vision developed, he not only drifted to colour, to digital but also towards abstraction. So, I'm not sure what's at play. Is it the medium or the vision?
Another thing: In my opinion, this book edit is not that successful. I understand he developed this approach to documenting (his relationship to) a place (Spirit of Burgundy, Brazil), but both suffer from too many images, too loose layout and losing unity by mixing 3-4 different styles. Some sections work well, but then some spreads almost become a guidebook to the region. As a guidebook, this works very well though, I think he captured the region in a sensitive way. But I would still prefer Pharaonic Light (shot in Egypt that has a more unified grainy b&w style).
Thank you('◇')ゞ