Centrefold Unpublished magazine
Is unpublished work more exciting, edgy, too passionately personal for public consumption? Or is it just work the client, or the maker didn’t feel strongly about or missed the brief? A new issue of Centrefold magazine called Unpublished showcases work from artists and photographers
Featured in both Creative Review and Selectism, Centrefold Unpublished magazine is currently causing a bit of a media stir. Guest edited and Art Directed by Plus Agency, featuring work by photographers and artists such as Mary McCartney, David Bailey, Kate Moss and Laurence Ellis, the magazine comes as a set of unbound folios in an A3 box and is limited to a print edition of 500. Though it is available in an iPad version.
Beautiful design and packaging, the issue raises fascinating questions as to what unpublished means, certainly for a photographer, in the digital age. On the one hand there’s the simple reality of digital production which means the final selected images from a shoot are such a tiny percentage that well, actually most images are unpublished.
On the other hand in the age of blogs, facebook, twitter, flickr, tumblr, it is actually a feat to be unpublished. Maybe there is something rare about these images and artistic works (songwriter Robert Wyatt publishes some music)?
In the digital age when everything can be published, do these images simply have curiosity value? Or should we trust the quality of the image-makers involved? Are these images even more fascinating simply because they haven’t previously been posted up somewhere?