Keith Richards--London RF 41 1973

Curator: What grabs me first is this almost chaotic energy, that rock and roll dynamism bursting from this gelatin silver print. It feels intimate, but distant at the same time, like eavesdropping. Editor: This is "Keith Richards--London RF 41" taken by Robert Frank in 1973. It’s a fascinating contact sheet. I’m drawn to the layered presentation—the texture of the filmstrip itself. Each frame provides another glimpse into that particular moment. We see, for example, an uninhibited Keith, candidly portrayed as himself at the time. The film’s edge markings read “Kodak Safety Film,” emphasizing both a documentary element and the inherent materiality of photography. Curator: The safety aspect is darkly humorous when applied to the Rolling Stones. The sequencing is key to it, though, isn't it? Like flicking through channels—fleeting moments. How does it shift our perception of Keith? Is he posing or existing? It also shows an editing choice. These strips weren't edited to its singular perfect image, or singular "decisive moment". What were some constraints when this sheet was released for distribution? Editor: Absolutely. The multiple frames capture the process of photography itself—selection, framing, even the passage of time. The imperfections inherent in this photographic style add to its rawness. We’re seeing the ‘real’ Keith Richards through Frank’s lens, which is distinct from any polished press shots circulating. The means of mass production influence our reading, too—think about reproduction of photographs in magazines at the time, compared to now in digital spheres. There is that idea of how photographs of celebrities, whether intentionally candid or posed, feed and sometimes undermine their personas in magazines. I’d agree this pushes against “decisive moment" aesthetics. The material context certainly informs this view, right? It suggests perhaps a stream-of-consciousness. Curator: Exactly. There’s also the economic layer; mass reproduction, value attached to celebrity... I almost get a punk vibe from Frank subverting conventional photography. Do you think Frank attempts to offer intimacy? To go behind celebrity artifice? Editor: That raw quality definitely gives a DIY ethos. And perhaps intimacy wasn’t the explicit goal—maybe simply authenticity, by showing the ‘warts and all’ of the photographic process itself and in his subjects. What's powerful about that! To reveal, and challenge norms simultaneously. The contrast from studio portraiture makes this unique.