Magnum Portfolio Review
June 23rd, 2009 
Photography 
Paul
A few weeks ago a regular email bulletin from Magnum announced that several Magnum photographers would be holding portfolio reviews in London, ahead of this year’s AGM. There was a fee to attend – £135 – and you got to select which photographers you wanted to have critique your work. Finding valuable criticism is a big problem for me, as it depends on who is giving it. If your friends are complimentary about your work they could be just being loyal, if someone else doesn’t like it, it could be they they simply don’t know what you’re trying to do. So the idea of getting the opinions of three people who knew what they were talking about, and had nothing to lose by giving it to me straight, sounded like it was worth the money.
So I pitched up at the new home of the Photographer’s Gallery on Sunday morning clutching a copy of The Constant Eye, a pile of work prints and a large bag of curiosity. I was to see Larry Towell, David Alan Harvey and Susan Meiselas. I’d never met any of them before, but of the three it was Towell’s work that I was most familiar with.
The café room of the gallery was full of people already and Fiona from Magnum’s London office, who had organised the whole thing, greeted us all, introduced the photographers, and got us organised. Suddenly I was sitting at a little table facing Larry Towell, with my book lying between us. I think we were both wandering what was supposed to happen next.
Well – we caught our breath – and Larry looked through the book. There were some pictures he thought were good and some he thought shouldn’t have been included. He took a lot of care over explaining to me what does and what does not work in a book – the captions, the design, the visual impact of the pictures. After many minutes had passed I realised that we hadn’t really discussed the merits of individual photographs, and I asked for his views. What struck me, as he described what might have been improved in certain pictures – a change of composition, a shift of focus, a vertical format instead of a horizontal one – was that I already had, in many cases, the improved pictures he was describing. They were on the same rolls of film, a few frames either side. I had eliminated them during my editing process. Clearly, I need to work on this aspect of my photography.
In the blink of an eye our allotted time was over and I was packing up my wares. I thanked him for what had been a very helpful review. It put certain things in their correct place which I, working away on my own at my own work, had overlooked. “I sometimes wonder” I said, “whether I really am a photographer.”
“So do I,” he replied. “I wonder whether I’m really a photographer too.”
Back down in the café I met Mark Seymour, who had also just finished his first review, and Marcus Brierley, who was waiting for his scheduled time to go in. I was buzzing with the ideas that Larry had sparked off, and Mark, who had just seen Constantine Manos, was similarly excited. I’d never before met Mark or Marcus, but one of the great things about gatherings like this is the people you bump into.
After lunch I sat down with my book at a little table again, this time with David Alan Harvey. David understood quickly that The Constant Eye, Vol.1 is purely a collection of pictures from the last few years, and that what I really needed to do was a book with more of a story. I hadn’t realised how much David had worked in Spain – the work prints I’d brought, from my Bous al Carrer project, sparked interest.
He suggested I should approach my next book in the same way as I would a novel. Don’t be too tied to a strict journalistic approach – let the story live it’s own life. “It’s not the story that is interesting, it’s how it’s told,” were his parting words.
Again, I felt I was buzzing, more excited about my work than I’d been for many months, and ready only to give myself the time to sort out all the thoughts and ideas generated by talking to these folks. Time for a quick coffee then back in the review room with Susan Meiselas.
Susan’s opinion of my pictures contrasted in some ways with the earlier discussions, which re-enforces what a subjective business this is! She was very clear about the pictures she liked and the ones that shouldn’t be there, and why, and also why I should work on a book with a common theme. The landscapes in The Constant Eye were the most comfortable, she noticed, which is dead right. I am much more comfortable taking pictures at a distance, for instance:
River Sava, Belgrade, Serbia. February 2004.
and
Karadjordjeva, Belgrade, Serbia. February 2004.
work better than:
Elmeyer Dance Academy, Vienna, Austria. November 2003.
Susan was also the only person other than myself who has ever said they liked this one:
Michaelerplatz, Vienna, Austria. October 2003.
And so, far too soon, my part in the review was over and I could go away and think through all that I’d picked up. I have to say I was amazed to find there were spare places available during the day, and that some people paid but didn’t turn up – this was the most valuable day I’ve spent for many years, and I’m very glad I was able to go. One irony is that many of the things I was told were actually things I already knew, but had lost sight of or forgotten in the course of the daily grind.
I’m very excited about getting my next book out, and the discussions of format, selection and theme were invaluable. And I love the idea of actively engaging the reader in a story. As Susan said just before I left: “Let’s see Constant Eye 2!”
Thanks Larry, David and Susan, for your time. I’m pretty sure you weren’t there for the money!
Now – what I want for my birthday is a good picture editor!
Tags: london, the constant eye
6 Comments
Comments RSS
TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
