"For as I am, film photography is the only possibility. My nature suggests matter. Film responds to my alphabet more than any other medium. The darkroom is an important element of this equation. There is light on film, and then light on paper. Photography is light. The physicality that this process involves fascinates me and keeps me honestly connected to light. I do respect every form and way of doing photography. My only concern is for how digital photography has taken control of the way people see the world."
I find this becomes a bit heavy. I can't pretend that I ever gave physics a thought when I took my pictures. I just made them as best I could. Of course, that doesn't preclude this particular photographer having his inner demons who might well all be of the scientific kind...
Digital hasn't changed my way of seeing anything. All digital has done is make the process different, and because of that, more easily accessible to many more people. There have been vast economic changed made to the profession as a result, but that isn't the same thing as saying that it has changed seeing. Vision is the same elusive old babe she ever was: some days she betrays you, and leaves a note on your pillow but, with luck, a few weeks later she lets herself back in with her own key. The secret to bliss is to keep her (and by obvious extension yourself) busy enough that she doesn't get itchy feet.
But getting back to the Italian: I see a lot of echoes of Frank and Leiter and others, and even the "wild west" section of old stock image catalogues. It's just a shame that photography seems to demand this "artist's statement" sort of crap to go alongside it.
That said, I like his stuff; he even makes landscape feel emotional. Which is no mean achievement.
Well, mañana is Thursday, the day my new Lindbergh tome should arrive! I've been walking extra daily steps just to get the stength and fitness to pick the thing up and make it back to the car. ;-)
Rob
