http://everyjack.com/category/play/ A new press specializing in digital illustrated content. For me it raises all the old questions about monetizing digital files and the problem of free culture. I get that an iPad can be a gorgeous visual tool. I get that you might be able to get content through a publisher and apps like this that you can’t get free online. But if there is so much good stuff online already (and growing by the day), why would you pay $20 for an app that is really just like a website?
chloroquine phosphate injection hindi Maybe having your iPad stuffed with cool visual book-apps (bapps?) will feel useful — no one can travel with art books after all. And surrounding ourselves (or at least myself) with visually inspiring material is valuable, in whatever form. But new photography or images of new visual art feels more like the news to me, than books. You can browse through it too quickly. One of the reasons we still feel comfortable paying for books, I think, is because they take so much time to read. Having them online isn’t a satisfying interface because of their unique temporality.
But books of photographs aren’t quite the same. They’re too browsable to absolutely need a book-like interface. For those rare occasions when I do want to have a collection of images, I really want to have them — as reference works, things I can return to, things that say who I am, things for life. I know my photobooks will still be there in fifty years. Will that be true of my photoapps? If the press goes under, who’s going to update them to make them readable?
I love to browse photography online. But when it comes time to buy, I want to feel like I have something that lasts. Big, bulky, real, there.
There’s nothing more beautiful than a book of photographs. There’s nothing more familiar than a screen full of them.