PDA

View Full Version : Reflections On Photo LA 2014 (Last Man Standing)



ROL
26-Jan-2014, 16:54
As was indicated in a previous announcement post, last weekend was my first attendance at photo XX as either exhibitor or attendee in eight years. I have in the past read with only reserved interest others' reports on these, and other such, events throughout those years. Not knowing, or caring, about the inexorable trend and lamentations of digital works and new technologies on display, I had no expectations about either the quality or the popularity of the event. It was what it was, and it simply no longer concerned me. Without getting into specifics, the decision to exhibit this year was made for me, after some casual off hand comments I made about perhaps investing a few days or so each year in showing work publicly again. I am sore and bruised (e.g., not entirely to be confused with tired and happy) from a long weekend of hugs, kisses, backslaps, attaboys, and incessant probings into the deep black (and white) of my heart – my work. Here is my necessarily myopic view from within my 'cell' (yes, at times it felt that way) as I experienced it.

As some may be aware, photo LA moved from the Santa Monica venue to the LA Mart (The Big Chair) in downtown LA. I won't conjecture as to the reasons for the move, but upon the opening of the freight elevator for my first view of the space, permanent empty stalls of various sizes presumably only recently vacated by the last flower show, I was assaulted by the most distressing cloud of yellowish, institutional quality, artificial light imaginable. Immediately, I set upon the task of adjusting my pre-designed walls based on the provided floor plans to the smaller dimensions actually present, leaving out some work I'd have preferred not to have carried in. The photo LA organization attempted to make remedy by offering me more lights (more CFLs!!!). This not being my first rodeo, as it were, I discovered some old faces, as well as many new, setting up in my 'hood. At one point, it seemed every one of my tools had been loaned out to other galleries setting up on my row. The next day my wife stopped by the completed Range of Light Photography booth before heading home to get dressed for the Opening Gala benefit for Inner City Arts, where she was informed that the light gray paper we had installed on the booth's back wall, would have to come down. That was eventually resolved in our favor – in fact, to the extent that photo LA actually blasted a pic of the Range of Light booth through social media as part of their promotion!

Thursday's opening night Gala absolutely (and literally) rocked. Every booth and aisle was packed to the point that moving around became very challenging. People remarked constantly all weekend long about the difference this year in the amount of energy in the venue. I heard again and again how different my booth was, and not because of the grey paper on the wall. People couldn't comprehend how I had gotten such deep blacks, vibrant whites, and smooth grays. (FYI: For my part, this was not something I noticed on my sojourns around the floor – but then why would I, having no desire to aspire to anything greater.) What paper had I printed on? – the assumption being that the prints were digital. Most had never seen classical (contemporary) fine art GSPs before, and simply had no idea what they were looking at. And thus ensued an unexpectedly wearying four day procession of educational necessity (opportunity?) in which I had to explain film, disabuse the uninitiated of the notion that the type of paper was even the most important quality of the image (i.e., understanding and appreciating light, and a skilled human printer are), and account for the complete presentation of the print. The woman in the gallery next to me brought over her artists' (digital) prints to get my opinion of them. Many returned to the booth throughout the run of the show, bringing friends or spouses back with them.

One woman came by specifically to let me know that at the workshops she had attended all day long, it had been proclaimed loudly in every one that the DARKROOM IS DEAD! This, in perplexing juxtaposition to the daily workshops entitled "The Print Matters". Apparently, the only prints that "matter" are those that are printed by machine. By Friday's end, I had become somewhat sensitive to my booth's "sore thumb" qualities, and was torn at the prospect of having to come back for two more days as the marginalized, red–headed step child of contemporary photography.

On brief tours about the showroom floor, it was affirmed that contemporary silver or alternative prints are almost nonexistent (save for one very notable booth ;)). Though I've known this academically for awhile, and have said as much over the last few years, it was abundantly clear that the page has turned fully to digital image presentation. I saw some very compelling imagery, beautiful prints, and was pleased in many ways at the evolution of digital art and media. But I kept asking myself if I would be proud to take credit for many of these works, to call them my own, knowing that I had only become a shooter, perhaps managed a digital computer file, and restricted the number of machine print copies (mostly printed by an outside lab) to some arbitrarily low number establishing scarcity and worth. It would seem now that contemporary classical (i.e., non–digital) fine art prints will be, if not already, relegated to the category and quaintness of folk art. Professionalism is work that is handed over to others charged with executing your vision.

The annual LA Art Show was held concurrently with photo LA this year, with shuttle buses running between the two venues. Several years ago I considered, and made plans (later aborted) to secure a booth at that event, feeling that the venue may be more supportive of my style of photography. Yet, a friend working a booth over there reported that one could roll bowling balls down the empty aisles of that venue. I since learned that Peter Fetterman, a well known gallery specializing in classical and vintage photography, had indeed eventually moved over to LA Art. The reason is abundantly clear to me now. Younger collectors in photography invest in what they know, and what they know is digital – and photo LA is digital.

I am the last man standing.




P.S. To any member of this forum who attended photo LA 2014 and did not stop by to at least say hi – and that was exactly no one – shame on you. And to the "photographers" who made my final day a very long one (no one here, I'm sure), because they felt their admission ticket gave them the right to foist their unsolicited work upon me and that it was my obligation to review their work for representation, usurping my extremely limited time and expense, and would not take "There's nothing I can do for you" as a truly legitimate appraisal, I will remember your lack of propriety and sense of entitlement.

Jim Fitzgerald
26-Jan-2014, 19:09
I've never been to any of these shows and my question is did you sell anything? Did anyone sell anything to off set the cost of this? I know at L.A.ART they were selling. Look at Tri Tran's post about the 5'x15' Platinum prints that were selling over there. Regardless it is about image quality. I hand craft my images as do you and would not spend the time in a digital show. Now yes the Platinum prints were from a digital negative but it is the print that counts. Did the real money go to the other venue? Who really knows and how do we find out. Anyhow congratulations and thanks for the review. I wish I could have gone to see your work. I was in Yosemite instead working on my vision of the world.

vinny
26-Jan-2014, 19:32
so, you didn't buy any of the "photographs" displayed on mini ipods or ipads?
I've been to a couple Photo LA's and they weren't worth the price of admission or parking.

ScottPhotoCo
27-Jan-2014, 15:22
Interesting post. Thank you for sharing your perspectives.

I also attended photoLA this year (for the first time) with high hopes as I quite enjoyed Paris Photo LA last year and was hoping that this would be quite good. Well, it was, and it wasn't. The facility was kind of depressing, as mentioned the lighting was horrible and the booth set-up wasn't conducive to lingering, exploring or really spending much time in any area as it was mostly crowded and people jockeying for position bunched in small spaces. There were a few booths that I really enjoyed as they had works from well known historical photographers that I have long admired and I really enjoyed seeing first-hand. Am I glad I went? Yes. Will I attend next year? Likely not.

The work was all over the board. Some things that I found inspiring, regardless of the media, and some things that just plain made me question where "photography" is going. Meeting and chatting with Douglas Kirkland was a highlight and having a chance to see some LFF members work first-hand was pretty awesome.

This brings me to address your public flogging of "any member of this forum who attended photo LA 2014 and did not stop by to at least say hi" and explain why. I would address this privately but with the public display shared I will address it here.

I was really looking forward to meeting any of the LFF members in person. I have met quite a few of you and I have always been very impressed with the talent and approachability of those I have met. When I went on Friday I went alone so that I could have time to spend just wandering with no agenda and look at whatever I wanted without having to worry if those with me were interested in the same things I was. I returned on Saturday with my wife to share all of the interesting things I'd seen and see if there was anything else I'd missed. As I walked around on Friday I was looking out for the people who posted in the previous photoLA thread, you included. When I first walked past the Susan Spiritus booth Jim C. was busy so I continued past and looked for your booth. Once I found your booth I was walking up and the person sitting at the booth had the most angry look of anyone I've see in a long time. I live in LA and I see angry drivers on the freeway every day, but this was, erm, uncomfortable. So, I chalked it up to a bad day and kept walking figuring I'd come back on Saturday with my wife and say hello. I made it back to the Spiritus booth later on Friday and had a nice quick chat with Jim and a few minutes to admire his beautiful prints in person. I was going to introduce my wife to him on Saturday and look at the works again but the booth was quite busy (yay!) and he was chatting with people. Hoping he was making friends and sales we left it for another time.

Well, Saturday I'm walking around with my wife, whom I always compliment the people that I've met from the LFF to, and we come up to your booth again. Same person, same scowl. So, I again just walked by. Now after seeing your post I get it. You were pissed and not happy to be there, and it showed. So if I should be shamed by not stopping to talk, then so be it. There's enough unhappiness and bitterness in the world that I chose not to welcome it in with open arms. I am sorry for your experience.

If I may turn this into something positive then I would like to offer a professional marketer and fellow film photographer's perspective.

Digital is here and it's here to stay. Because we all shoot and love film doesn't make the final image inherently better (to 99% of all consumers) than an image made using any other medium. Personally, I feel that a technically well made and visually compelling image looks much, much better using traditional processes but this has come through years of living and working in a digital world (I own an advertising agency) as well as educating myself to see and appreciate the differences. Unfortunately, this is not readily apparent to the vast majority of the people out there who may not have seen nor been exposed to really great work. In all honesty, I saw some really great digital work and some really poor traditional work while there. So, the medium does not ensure great work.

I had the honor or meeting Douglas Kirkland and spending a little time chatting with him. I have known his work for many years and he is one of the reasons that I came back to shooting film. My wife and I on the way home had a great discussion about the work of Mr. Kirkland (one of the many reasons I love her) and the true quality of his work over his more celebrity status. My wife is not a photography aficionado nor does she know the deepest differences between the tradition or digital process. She looks a photographs as a vast majority of people do, as an impulse to feel something that makes them feel good, or think about something important or capture an important moment to them. Even she immediately picked up on the difference in the images of Mr. Kirkland as he transitioned from film to digital capture. But, Mr. Kirkland wasn't up on stage talking about how bad things were in the "traditional" world nor hyping digital. The media is simply a tool he uses to do what he truly loves and that is making photographs. His passion, his exuberance talking about making photographs was infectious. He even specifically mentioned and pointed out images that he made using his 8x10 Deardorff demonstrating the "magic" that he could only get using this format. I heard several people around me (with the latest and greatest SLR's sitting on their laps) talk about wanting to know more about what he was pointing out in his approachable and always passionate way.

My point is this, passion and enthusiasm sells. Back that up with a product that is demonstrably better and people will be interested. Down-talk people and what they perceive to be true, even if they are mistaken, will only create boundaries and walls that will be even harder to break through as we all work to keep this passion we love so much alive. Sharing, talking and educating people freely with passion and zeal is the way that you'll find the most success. It's the way of the world today, take it or leave it. That is your choice.

So I will close this by wishing you much success and hoping that we might meet in happier circumstances. :)


Respectfully,

Tim
www.ScottPhoto.co

Drew Wiley
27-Jan-2014, 16:28
Interesting. It's sure different up here. I've only had one person in the last two years ask if film is still made. People might confuse 4x5 and 8x10, but they still associate either with the real deal. It must be frustrating dealing with sheer ignorance. But maybe it's just the wrong venue. There has to be a lot of people down
that way who know the difference. I see the two paths proceeding quite comfortably in parallel among local artists, with a certain amt of hybrid application. It's
the best of both worlds in terms of technical options. But I too lament the general visual illiteracy fostered by web hype and the spiked ball marketing attitude of
the consumer electronics industry. People just need to be exposed to high-quality prints in person, regardless. Hope my health stays intact long enough to develop
some appropriate venue up here, but who knows. Life is short and other things than art are a higher priority.