PUBLISHING - aspen magazine (nothing about skiing)

Between 1965 and 1971 there was a magazine called Aspen. It was the first
real multi-media magazine. The content was not bound; it was loose in a box.
An issue might contain loose-leaf pages set in contemporary type, motion
picture clips on a reel, acetate recordings, mimeograph articles, and
original prints.

Why not something like the same for photographs? Not reproductions or
originals tipped-in or pasted to a book page - loose, or as loose as the
photographer wishes to present them.

The art presented in Aspen was made for distribution, not to hang on walls
or be revered in an auditorium or movie theatre. We can have the same for
photography. Many photographers will feel their work would be diminished or
undervalued in such a form, and that is just fine, a self-limiting factor.
This photographic 'aspen' will be for the rest who are confident that
communicating is the superlative.

Aspen Magazine evaporated into so many parts that not a single complete
collection has been found. Indeed, the publisher herself has not been found
(or has, and has been respectfully kept secret.) However, there is a web
version that recapitulates the whole work. See http://www.ubu.com/aspen/.

Interested in recreating a similar magazine, photos in a box?

NowhereMan wrote:
Between 1965 and 1971 there was a magazine called Aspen. It was the first
real multi-media magazine. The content was not bound; it was loose in a box.
An issue might contain loose-leaf pages set in contemporary type, motion
picture clips on a reel, acetate recordings, mimeograph articles, and
original prints.

Why not something like the same for photographs? Not reproductions or
originals tipped-in or pasted to a book page - loose, or as loose as the
photographer wishes to present them.

The art presented in Aspen was made for distribution, not to hang on walls
or be revered in an auditorium or movie theatre. We can have the same for
photography. Many photographers will feel their work would be diminished or
undervalued in such a form, and that is just fine, a self-limiting factor.
This photographic 'aspen' will be for the rest who are confident that
communicating is the superlative.

Aspen Magazine evaporated into so many parts that not a single complete
collection has been found. Indeed, the publisher herself has not been found
(or has, and has been respectfully kept secret.) However, there is a web
version that recapitulates the whole work. See http://www.ubu.com/aspen/.

Interested in recreating a similar magazine, photos in a box?



There sort of is that approach still being done, though not really
landscape images. It is a very high end publication called Visionai

http://www.visionaireworld.com

It could almost be called a book, rather than a magazine. The web site
gives a look at what it is all about. Mostly this has to do with the
world of fashion, and some big name photographers, illustrators, and
artists. Some of the work will likely not appeal to people on this news
group, though I point it out to show that the idea is still going.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:51:43 -0600,
"NowhereMan" wrote:

Between 1965 and 1971 there was a magazine called Aspen. It was the first
real multi-media magazine. The content was not bound; it was loose in a box.
An issue might contain loose-leaf pages set in contemporary type, motion
picture clips on a reel, acetate recordings, mimeograph articles, and
original prints.

Why not something like the same for photographs? Not reproductions or
originals tipped-in or pasted to a book page - loose, or as loose as the
photographer wishes to present them.

The art presented in Aspen was made for distribution, not to hang on walls
or be revered in an auditorium or movie theatre. We can have the same for
photography. Many photographers will feel their work would be diminished or
undervalued in such a form, and that is just fine, a self-limiting factor.
This photographic 'aspen' will be for the rest who are confident that
communicating is the superlative.

Aspen Magazine evaporated into so many parts that not a single complete
collection has been found. Indeed, the publisher herself has not been found
(or has, and has been respectfully kept secret.) However, there is a web
version that recapitulates the whole work. See http://www.ubu.com/aspen/.

Interested in recreating a similar magazine, photos in a box?



January 16, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

This is a wonderful idea, and I'm sure one
which many people have had.

The problem would be money, no doubt. A
photographer contributing one original print,
say an 8x10, would likely be spending about a
dollar or maybe half-dollar. There's a small
part of the contents of the box. It would be
easy to pack many dollars of art materials
into such a box. Never mind the money the
artist deserves for the ability to do it.

Even if all contributions were free, the
distributor might find the cost of an empty
box and postage quite enough. What if the
subscription list were one thousand people?
That's a lot of work (a thousand original
prints for each photograph published ...??).
How much will the subscription cost? Will it
be a quarterly? That's not very often but
will seem hectic to anyone behind such a
production. Will they have a staff to assist?
That's more expense ...

Sorry to be a wet blanket. It's definitely
not my intention to rain on a parade, but
plain reality must be faced. I'd love to
contribute photographs for such a
publication, and I might even do it for no
fee at the beginning. But I'd just like to
know the people behind it were the sort who
think ahead and anticipate at least some of
the problems.

I think a question I raised above needs to be
addressed -- How much will the subscription
cost? If it's higher than a hundred dollars
an issue, the subscriber list would be a
who's who of affluent people willing to
spend. A valuable list. One that would be
difficult to develop. One that would take
very special skills to develop.

I remain non-negative about it, though. I'd
contribute to the first two (maybe more)
issues for free, as long as it's not already
in the many hundreds or thousands.

My motivation would be the fact that my work
would be in a format that presented it as
valid and valuable, and it would be
subscribed to by people who had that view.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote in message
...

[...] What if the
subscription list were one thousand people?

Not a new concept - limited to 100 subscriptions. Some people will rant
'exclusivity', others will buy and sell their subscriptions. Eventually the
number will be increased if value permits.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:36:16 -0600,
"NowhereMan" wrote:

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote in message
.. .

[...] What if the
subscription list were one thousand people?

Not a new concept - limited to 100 subscriptions. Some people will rant
'exclusivity', others will buy and sell their subscriptions. Eventually the
number will be increased if value permits.



January 16, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

How interesting. How much does a subscription
cost? Must be expensive.

Who does this except departments of large
enterprises like fashion magazines?

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

Lloyd Erlick spake thus:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:51:43 -0600,
"NowhereMan" wrote:

Between 1965 and 1971 there was a magazine called Aspen. It was the
first real multi-media magazine. The content was not bound; it was
loose in a box. An issue might contain loose-leaf pages set in
contemporary type, motion picture clips on a reel, acetate
recordings, mimeograph articles, and original prints.

Why not something like the same for photographs? Not reproductions
or originals tipped-in or pasted to a book page - loose, or as
loose as the photographer wishes to present them.

The art presented in Aspen was made for distribution, not to hang
on walls or be revered in an auditorium or movie theatre. We can
have the same for photography. Many photographers will feel their
work would be diminished or undervalued in such a form, and that is
just fine, a self-limiting factor. This photographic 'aspen' will
be for the rest who are confident that communicating is the
superlative.

Aspen Magazine evaporated into so many parts that not a single
complete collection has been found. Indeed, the publisher herself
has not been found (or has, and has been respectfully kept secret.)
However, there is a web version that recapitulates the whole work.
See http://www.ubu.com/aspen/.

Interested in recreating a similar magazine, photos in a box?

This is a wonderful idea, and I'm sure one which many people have
had.

The problem would be money, no doubt. A photographer contributing one
original print, say an 8x10, would likely be spending about a dollar
or maybe half-dollar. There's a small part of the contents of the
box. It would be easy to pack many dollars of art materials into such
a box. Never mind the money the artist deserves for the ability to do
it.

Even if all contributions were free, the distributor might find the
cost of an empty box and postage quite enough. What if the
subscription list were one thousand people? That's a lot of work (a
thousand original prints for each photograph published ...??). How
much will the subscription cost? Will it be a quarterly? That's not
very often but will seem hectic to anyone behind such a production.
Will they have a staff to assist? That's more expense ...

Something to think about: subscriptions to the original Aspen were $16
for 1 year[1] (6 issues, nominally at least). $16. A lot for a magazine
at the time, as I remember.

But not an exorbitant amount. If they could do it then, why couldn't
someone do something like it now?


[1] See http://www.ubu.com/aspen/advertisements/aspen3Ad.html for a
contemporary ad.


--
The only reason corrupt Republicans rule the roost in Washington
is because the corrupt Democrats can't muster any viable opposition.

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote in message
...

How interesting. How much does a subscription
cost? Must be expensive.

I would estimate about $200 a year.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:32:04 -0600, "Lorem
Ipsum" wrote:


"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote in message
.. .

How interesting. How much does a subscription
cost? Must be expensive.

I would estimate about $200 a year.



January 17, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

OK, fine. It's expensive. But maybe not
expensive enough?

Say two issues a year -- one hundred dollars
from the subscriber per box. Limited to one
hundred subscribers. Uh-oh, one hundred
subscribers times two hundred dollars is
twenty thousand dollars per year. That's not
much if the box is to be filled with original
material. Unexposed film and paper cost
enough, never mind a crust for the artists.

If it's done strictly for love, I'd say fine.
But that kind of enterprise has a limited
lifespan, as we've probably all seen or
experienced. Getting a large group of
photographers to work for love, on a
deadline, and to a high level of quality,
should be fun for whoever takes it on!

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

"Lloyd Erlick" Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com

If it's done strictly for love, I'd say fine.

Amateur, or more properly Amator, is for the love of the effort.

But that kind of enterprise has a limited
lifespan, as we've probably all seen or
experienced. Getting a large group of
photographers to work for love, on a
deadline, and to a high level of quality,
should be fun for whoever takes it on!

Nevermind large. Such efforts are always for a minority of the Real. You are
the only one who had proposed realistic challenges. Continue on. It is
highly likely that the constituency of such a publication is so far beyond
Usenet that it's silly to continue here. So let's noodle this out. I am

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 09:56:15 -0800, Gordon Moat
wrote:

Some of the work will likely not appeal to people on this news
group, though I point it out to show that the idea is still going.

Yeah, very Andy Warhol-ish.

JD