New Colour Guide

2013 - by Ricardo Garrido

1929 Words

Olmo Gonzalez:
For this new edition of the already acclaimed Photobook Combat, I have asked Ricardo Garrido, one of the three popes of the PhotobookClub Madrid—who suggests what is cool or not cool in photography books—to share his ideas about one of the last minute surprises of the year 2012: New Colour Guide by John MacLean. He compares it to one of the most fundamental books of the history of photography—nothing more and nothing less than William Eggleston’s Guide. I will leave you with Ricardo’s words:

Ricardo Garrido:
In one corner of the ring, with colorful shorts and riding a tricycle: William Eggleston along with his coach Sally Eauclaire. In the other corner of the ring, stomping, without a coach and wearing shorts that read ‘New Colour Guide’, aspiring champion John MacLean.

William Eggleston had a brilliant career as a photographer; he ‘hit the ball out the park’ back in 1976 with an exhibition at MoMA. This exhibition sparked a lot of controversy between critics who said his photographs were original, and those who said his photographs were perfectly banal.

In the USA they soon began to talk about ‘New Color’ as if they had invented it—and that Eliot Porter and Ernst Haas were the ‘Old Color’. ‘New Color’ photographers included Stephen Shore, Joel Meyerowitz, Mitch Epstein, Larry Babis, Adam Bartos, Len Jenshel and Kenneth McGowan.
All these photographers are collected in Sally Eauclaire’s book; New Color / New Work.

All things considered, these ‘New Color’ photographers remind me, in part, of the pictorialists of the early twentieth century, so preoccupied with finding the perfect structures. The book, William Eggleston’s Guide seems like a walk through his native Memphis, making the ordinary something extraordinary, something that even John Szarkowski (Director of the photography department at MoMA) could not explain adequately when he wrote the introduction to the book. But why was the book called ‘William Eggleston’s Guide’—what did he mean by ‘Guide’? Was the title innocent or intentional?

Today we see the intention behind the title of the book more clearly; it was not only a guide to the photos by Eggleston but it was intended to be a guide to how color photos should be taken. Thirty-seven years have passed since the publication of Eggleston’s book—photography has advanced exponentially, everyone has a camera in their pocket and anyone can make photographs and manipulate them on their home computer. It seems that the time has come to review color in contemporary photography.

At this point, John MacLean punches the table and the crayons fly into the air. He publishes New Colour Guide and his title is deliberate, since it implies that what we understood as ‘New Color’ is no longer new… and that colour in today’s photography is another thing entirely.
The title of the book says this clear and loud, with letters that fill the entire cover. MacLean proposes a new time in the history of photography: A ‘Ferrari’ of ‘new colour’ that speeds past the ‘old horse and cart’ of the ‘old color’ of Eggleston’s 1970’s.

In one respect, MacLean far exceeds Eggleston. If Eggleston’s subject matter was banal… MacLean’s is much more banal!

Have you noticed that in what I have written so far, ‘New Color’ appears when we refer to the color of the 70’s and ‘New Colour’ when we refer to the colour of the 2010s? This is because in the USA the word ‘color’ is written c o l o r and in England it is spelled c o l o u r. This raises a question: Is this a slap from MacLean to the New Colorists on the other side of the Atlantic? Does he mean to make a point between the new and the old? Is it intentional? Will we have to wait several years to find out? Is John MacLean the typical uptight Brit who—when a Spaniard arrives in London and asks him something—doesn’t answer because he hasn’t pronounced English correctly? Or is John, in fact, a fan of Monty Pythton?


Alberto Lizaralde:
In my opinion John MacLean is a very crude guy. He seeks to attract attention to himself by giving his book this title—seeking a direct confrontation with Eggleston. John MacLean, to my mind, is very unsubtle; he makes a book called “Guide to the new color” and what you find is… only that, color. An orange dot in this photo and an orange dot in the other. It seems that his way of photographing is based only on color games. It goes no further. And as to raising a flag—and waving it as if he is the first to carry it — artists who talk up their work are rarely worth anything.

Eggleston is a subtle guy, with a slow cadence, his images seduce with their rhythms—then he STABS you without you even knowing it. He made his own guide. His—not the American Color’s—or anything like that. He presented his way of seeing the world in a book.

Ricardo Garrido:
The title of John MacLean’s book is important, because in these times, a book that spoke of color in subtle form, would go unnoticed.
The fact that John MacLean speaks of his work or from his “I” does not detract from his value as an artist; it is necessary to separate the person from the artist to value art in a more just way, not all artists have to be humble.

What we see in Eggleston’s Guide, is the shadow of the author in the light of a lantern that is on the ground, it has had repercussions and nobody wonders why. The reason for such success was that he led the “New Color” and all the photographic media supported the “New Color” because it was economically convenient for them, all the houses of photographic material, magazines, stores, etc., advised to shoot in color negative, which it gave “better color”, and if not; “Look at the pictures of Eggleston.”
Normal people also liked Eggleston, because they could take that kind of photos and feel like more of an artist. You could tell the neighbor; “Look, I have taken a picture of a dog drinking from a puddle” and the neighbor answers; “! Fuck! Like Eggleston! You’re a great artist!”

My grandfather used to shoot in color slide, but my father preferred color negative, which was almost three times more expensive, since the development included 36 copies of 10 × 15, and that was very profitable for stores.
Eggleston’s guide (without him wanting it, I think) became a tool to increase the consumption of photographic material, and in a country as capitalist as the US, guys like this are made monumental.

In this way, Eggleston’s book has become a political book, in a subtle way, as Alberto says, he stabs you without you noticing, but also steals your wallet.
John MacLean’s book is sincere, he says; “I’m going to talk about Color” and he talks about color. It must be seen as a political book. However, he makes an unforgivable mistake (at least in this country it is unforgivable), he lacks humour in his photographs. A book with political overtones without humour is like a Polvorones sandwich, it becomes difficult to digest. It lacks irony, it lacks funny shots that appeal to the general public, for this reason, it will remain a book only for geeks who know photographic history.

Juan Guia:
One factor that is not apparent in Eggleston’s book is that the prints were made by the dye transfer process. The result is absolutely mind-blowing, and very different from what a normal hobbyist can do. Original prints are well worth seeing.

I’ve only looked at MacLean’s book so I can’t give an informed opinion, but it did give me the feeling that he had a certain sense of humour, perhaps a bit wicked. As you say, the photographs gave me the feeling of being even more banal than Eggleston’s, and I think that’s where the bad blood seeps in.

The biggest difference that I see between the two is in the conception of the photographic image. Imagine the black and white images. Eggleston’s would not clash with classic American photographs of the sixties and seventies. I think MacLean’s wouldn’t fit. They are too… postmodern, so to speak. I bet on MacLean as a Monty Python fan.

Olmo Gonzalez:
Making a book with these images so banal and so obvious in terms of structure seems very daring on the part of MacLean. That’s why I bought the book, it’s very punk in its own way. Apart from the colors, of course.

I wish Lizaralde would come to a gathering to say all those interesting things in person!

I still don’t know which side I am on, I want to believe that of MacLean, and since perception is a lie, surely I already think that way.

Ricardo Garrido:
As I understand it, the Eggleston copies that were presented at the MOMA (1976) were contact copies of negatives, then the transfers, giant copies, etc. would be made. But I’m not 100% sure.
Yes, it’s true, you have to see the originals. He is like Ansel Adams, he cannot be fully judged from the photos we see in the books; he is a wall photographer.
With these books, it is not a question of siding with one or the other, since they are different times, Eggleston champions the new color with the help of the institutions and MacLean, as Olmo says, in a more punk way, since today you don’t have to be famous to be able to publish a photobook. If photographic history continues its cyclical rhythm, MacLean’s book will become an important book, a reference to the “color” of our time.

By the way, I forgot an important detail, in MacLean’s book, on the first page there is a purple sticker that says; “If you can see the blue lines, the color temperature is less than 5000º Kelvin”, that is, you cannot trust the cones of the retina of your eyes and if you want to see the photos with the right color, you have to do it with daylight. And it works, when you see the sticker in another type of light, you see two blue bands.
The idea of ​​the sticker is freaky but I love it, all the color books that value themselves would have to have one.

Alberto Lizaralde:
The sticker thing is simply telling you that you should view the book with a light source with the correct color temperature. But it is already obvious that you should see a photo book that way, he doesn’t need to tell us!

Putting it like this in a book is like a photographer telling the viewer at an exhibition that he must see the prints at a certain distance to see them correctly. It’s conceited.

For me, the big difference is that Eggleston revolutionized color by himself without having to announce to the four winds what he was doing. And that’s why he’s a genius and MacLean isn’t.

MacLean has the arrogance of announcing himself as the apostle of something. And that’s a lot for an artist to claim. Too much in this case.

It’s as if I make a photobook and call it “The New Spanish Photography.” Either it is a totally ironic title… or it would show me to the world as being a real asshole.

Ricardo Garrido:
Eggleston did not announce anything to the four winds because there were already people who did it for him.
In Spain, artists with big egos are frowned upon, they better go abroad (eg, Picasso), we like artists to live like real beggars (eg: Gaudí).

Olmo Gonzalez:
Oh! Yes! Let’s make such a book!
“The New Spanish iPhone Photography” 😂