Brett Weston Exhibition/April-Sept. 2016, Pasadena, CA

[Merg Ross]

http://pmcaonline.org/exhibitions/brett-weston/

[Michael Clark]

Thanks for posting Mr. Ross.

[David Karp]

This will be fun to see. Thanks Merg.

[ScottPhotoCo]

Must see this. Thank you for posting!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Just my luck! I'll have to hope for this to make it to Portland. We will be back in SoCal at some point so in the memory banks it goes. Thanks so much Merg.

[Merg Ross]

Reminder, the exhibition is up. Closes on September 11, 2016.

[Darin Boville]

Well, just drove by there (twice) a week or two ago. Oh well.

If you are not a Brett Weston fan and you are in the area you still might want to take a look. I wasn't keen on his work but I happened upon an exhibit of his work while traveling with family--in Santa Barbara. Nice show. Thought more highly of his work afterwards. I posted about the show here on LFF somewhere, way back.

The organizers of this show of forty-two prints claim that over half have never been exhibited before. There's a downloadable brochure at the link at the top.

--Darin

[Merg Ross]

Well, just drove by there (twice) a week or two ago. Oh well.

If you are not a Brett Weston fan and you are in the area you still might want to take a look. I wasn't keen on his work but I happened upon an exhibit of his work while traveling with family--in Santa Barbara. Nice show. Thought more highly of his work afterwards. I posted about the show here on LFF somewhere, way back.

The organizers of this show of forty-two prints claim that over half have never been exhibited before. There's a downloadable brochure at the link at the top.

--Darin

From the 2009 exhibition at Santa Barbara Museum of Art:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?45843-Brett-Weston-Exhibit-at-Santa-Barbara-Museum-of-Art&highlight=brett+weston+santa+barbara

[Steve Goldstein]

Merg, do you know if there are any plans for this exhibit to travel to other venues? There was nothing about it in the brochure as far as I could see (which may, admittedly, not be very far).

[Michael Clark]

Today I saw the Brett Weston Exhibit at the PMCA and was surprised that Weston had taken so many close up photographs and really nice ones too. The Exhibit is in one large room and prints are spaced out nicely, not cramped. Lighting is good and there were only one or two people there besides myself. I parked in the lot next to the Museum which belonged to the Eye glass place, but there is parking underneath the PMCA which is rather small. Also Claire Falkenstein has her work displayed in the front part of the Gallery. Best to get there and have a look before everyone else finds out about the exhibit.

Mike

[Merg Ross]

Merg, do you know if there are any plans for this exhibit to travel to other venues? There was nothing about it in the brochure as far as I could see (which may, admittedly, not be very far).

Steve, I have not heard of any plans for this exhibition to travel.

[Merg Ross]

Just a reminder. Exhibit closes on Sunday, September 11, 2016.

[David Karp]

Thanks Merg. I appreciate the reminder. I really want to see this and have not done so!

[faberryman]

I first saw Brett Weston's work in 1976 at an exhibit in Paris. It has served as an inspiration to me for over 40 years. Phenomenal print quality. It is a must see exhibit.

[Merg Ross]

Thanks Merg. I appreciate the reminder. I really want to see this and have not done so!

Dave, I was thinking of you. I hope you have an opportunity to view the exhibition, and perhaps report back.

Best,
Merg

[LabRat]

Thanks for posting this, Merg!!!

I saw the show a few weeks ago, and was moved/inspired... I wish more contemporary photography would follow his lead...

Thanks again!!!

Steve K

[David Karp]

Merg,

I saw it yesterday. Finally!

It was an interesting exhibit. I am not sure what to think of it. Here is why.

Remember the large show at the Santa Barbara art museum? I walked out of that show amazed, impressed, overwhelmed, and inspired. It was a much larger show, with a broad variety of Brett's photographs.

The Pasadena show was smaller, with a narrower focus -- It was concentrated on close up works, details, and the like. I believe nearly 1/2 of the photos had not been exhibited to the public before. Perhaps that is the difference. I felt that some of the photos were remarkable. Just wonderful. Some of the others, not. At least to me. I hate to say that as an admirer of the man's work and as someone without any hint of his experience or accomplishment. But honestly, that was how I felt as I walked away. I am happy that I went. Some of the work, including photos of cracked paint, broken glass, a torn leaf, a wall, details from perhaps Weston Beach, and his famous stairway from San Francisco were just awesome.

Another thing I found interesting was the printing. These were uniformly darker than some of the other Brett prints I have seen, more reminiscent of Edward's prints, than some other examples I have seen. The best comparison I have seen is a portfolio of Edward's work that Brett printed not long before Edward passed. Brett's interpretations were on a more neutral or colder toned paper and not printed as dark as examples of the same photographs I have seen printed by Edward. My college has a nearly complete set of that portfolio on display in the library. It is nice to be able to drop in and look at them from time to time.

Perhaps some of Brett's photos I have seen were more the exception? I always felt his printing style was bolder than his father's.

I write some of these words with trepidation, given my admiration of Brett's work and my relative lack of experience. I am very interested in your thoughts Merg. If not of the exhibit, but in general.

[Merg Ross]

Merg,

I saw it yesterday. Finally!

It was an interesting exhibit. I am not sure what to think of it. Here is why.

Remember the large show at the Santa Barbara art museum? I walked out of that show amazed, impressed, overwhelmed, and inspired. It was a much larger show, with a broad variety of Brett's photographs.

The Pasadena show was smaller, with a narrower focus -- It was concentrated on close up works, details, and the like. I believe nearly 1/2 of the photos had not been exhibited to the public before. Perhaps that is the difference. I felt that some of the photos were remarkable. Just wonderful. Some of the others, not. At least to me. I hate to say that as an admirer of the man's work and as someone without any hint of his experience or accomplishment. But honestly, that was how I felt as I walked away. I am happy that I went. Some of the work, including photos of cracked paint, broken glass, a torn leaf, a wall, details from perhaps Weston Beach, and his famous stairway from San Francisco were just awesome.

Another thing I found interesting was the printing. These were uniformly darker than some of the other Brett prints I have seen, more reminiscent of Edward's prints, than some other examples I have seen. The best comparison I have seen is a portfolio of Edward's work that Brett printed not long before Edward passed. Brett's interpretations were on a more neutral or colder toned paper and not printed as dark as examples of the same photographs I have seen printed by Edward. My college has a nearly complete set of that portfolio on display in the library. It is nice to be able to drop in and look at them from time to time.

Perhaps some of Brett's photos I have seen were more the exception? I always felt his printing style was bolder than his father's.

I write some of these words with trepidation, given my admiration of Brett's work and my relative lack of experience. I am very interested in your thoughts Merg. If not of the exhibit, but in general.

Dave,

Thank you for sharing your impression of the exhibition. I know that we have discussed Brett in the past, and your thoughts are very much appreciated.

I remember well the 2009 exhibition at the Santa Barbara Museum, and had the pleasure of being on the opening night panel with Scott Nichols. It was the exhibit that Brett deserved, and in my opinion will be very difficult to surpass. You walked out of that show, as many did, "amazed. impressed, overwhelmed, and inspired". You were among those fortunate enough to view the breadth of Brett Weston's vision, almost seven decades worth. I thought at the time, it may not happen again; the Pasadena exhibition is proof. I did not, as you did, view the exhibition, however the title alone was a harbinger of what will perhaps define Brett in the short term. As so often happens, he will be defined by a curatorial staff with a theme, while missing the big picture.

In Brett's case this has happened for two reasons. First, he was probably one of the most prolific photographers of the genre in history. Second, when he died, his work, all of it, ended up in one place; the good and bad together. He had the time to destroy negatives, but not so his prints. He was ruthless in the destruction of prints, but time ran out. The current exhibition is the result; beware of prints that have not been exhibited before, there may be a good reason.

Dave, thanks again. I will give thought to the second item in your post, the prints.

Merg

[Darin Boville]

Many of the prints I see of Edwards (all over the country) also seem quite dark, specially in the typical dim museum lighting. We've talked about this before but my theory is that Edward viewed them in much brighter light.

--Darin

[LabRat]

Many of the prints I see of Edwards (all over the country) also seem quite dark, specially in the typical dim museum lighting. We've talked about this before but my theory is that Edward viewed them in much brighter light.

--Darin

Yes, I also have noticed that E's prints sometimes tended to be sometimes dark or flat (but sometimes not), but I think one reason might be that when working in an unheated lab, prints can suffer loss of Dmax when using a cool/cold print developer, so one might compensate by adding more exposure to get a better black or much longer development (but often at a cost of overall contrast)... Some of his more brilliant contrast prints (such as sand dune studies) I suspect were printed during warm summer months...

Steve K

[Michael Clark]

To me the lighting of Brett's photographs in the Santa Barbra exhibition was a little on the dark side and not much room to view the lager prints. The lighting Pasadena exhibit was much brighter and more viewing space and fewer prints . That my have influenced the viewing of the prints.

[Merg Ross]

Merg,

Another thing I found interesting was the printing. These were uniformly darker than some of the other Brett prints I have seen, more reminiscent of Edward's prints, than some other examples I have seen. The best comparison I have seen is a portfolio of Edward's work that Brett printed not long before Edward passed. Brett's interpretations were on a more neutral or colder toned paper and not printed as dark as examples of the same photographs I have seen printed by Edward. My college has a nearly complete set of that portfolio on display in the library. It is nice to be able to drop in and look at them from time to time.

Perhaps some of Brett's photos I have seen were more the exception? I always felt his printing style was bolder than his father's.

I write some of these words with trepidation, given my admiration of Brett's work and my relative lack of experience. I am very interested in your thoughts Merg. If not of the exhibit, but in general.

Dave, one factor to be considered when viewing prints is the original viewing circumstance. In the case of prints made by Edward during the last dozen years of his career, as well as the Project Prints made by Brett, in both cases they were viewed under the west facing skylight of EW's studio at Wildcat. As to Brett's prints at Pasadena, it may be that they are not representative of his best prints. However, from viewing a great many of Brett's prints, there was some inconsistency in the results; but when he nailed it, the prints were extraordinary! I think it is safe to say that Brett was not as patient a printer as Cole. He chose negatives for his own portfolios that were easy to print, which made sense and provided a level of consistency, but still one-off.

The prints at your college were made on Haloid Industro contact paper manufactured by Xerox. As you note, the paper was not as warm as the Convira paper that Edward favored earlier. For sure, Brett's printing style was different from that of his father, especially when he moved away from contact printing and began enlarging with a point source light later in his career. Those prints were often high contrast, displaying little or no shadow detail.

[Drew Wiley]

I think some of these "dark" prints of EW were really "seconds" that somehow got into circulation, and not what he truly had in mind. I've seen quite a few of them
for sale in this neighborhood, which were inherited from a local sidekick of the era. Won't say exactly who, though I do know. And no, they didn't fetch premium prices. In fact, they didn't sell well at all. People can see the difference. Dim museum lighting is another story. Bring your own light I guess.

[Drew Wiley]

I should have qualified that. I suspect that some of these well known West Coast photographers swapped prints from time to time; and it probably wasn't their best
examples.

[LabRat]

I think some of these "dark" prints of EW were really "seconds" that somehow got into circulation, and not what he truly had in mind. I've seen quite a few of them
for sale in this neighborhood, which were inherited from a local sidekick of the era. Won't say exactly who, though I do know. And no, they didn't fetch premium prices. In fact, they didn't sell well at all. People can see the difference. Dim museum lighting is another story. Bring your own light I guess.

I don't know, but I saw the set that was in the Huntington Collection years back, and I was under the understanding that this extensive set was a commission from EW at that time, so probably printed together for that, but the set was a little flat, and it seemed that EW was trying hard to get Dmax + a good black but was having trouble with it... (If there was a cool or damp spell when this was commissioned, it would be uphill all the way getting the set printed...)

I have seen that problem while trying to print in a cold darkroom, with a cold developer, where the hydroquinone looses most of it's activity, and hence, thin blacks...

But if this theory has any merit, you have to give him a lot of credit for being able to pull what he did off under the conditions he had to work with... (We take for granted central heating in home labs...)

Steve K

[Drew Wiley]

Sure about that? In my experience, cool conditions tend to favor hydroquinone over other developing ingredients and boost the characteristic greenish effect. I've
deliberately done that in certain cases, though I'm not routinely fond of "dektolish" tones. Can't recall that look in EW's work. But I don't work with the same papers
either, so am guessing a bit. His early work involved chlorobromide papers it seems. I'd suspect frequent amidol later on. Somone else might know the actual facts. I've seen BW's favorite amidol published - not a lot different from mine, though I've left out the redundant accelerator.

[LabRat]

Sure about that? In my experience, cool conditions tend to favor hydroquinone over other developing ingredients and boost the characteristic greenish effect. I've
deliberately done that in certain cases, though I'm not routinely fond of "dektolish" tones. Can't recall that look in EW's work. But I don't work with the same papers
either, so am guessing a bit. His early work involved chlorobromide papers it seems. I'd suspect frequent amidol later on. Somone else might know the actual facts. I've seen BW's favorite amidol published - not a lot different from mine, though I've left out the redundant accelerator.

You have that reversed, metol works but flat alone, but hydroquinone looses most of it's contrast activity below mid-60 deg temps... Below a temp threshold, prints get really flat, giving a mainly metol development...

[Merg Ross]

You have that reversed, metol works but flat alone, but hydroquinone looses most of it's contrast activity below mid-60 deg temps... Below a temp threshold, prints get really flat, giving a mainly metol development...

Correct. Edward was aware of this and had a light bulb under his developer tray to keep the temperature in line. Brett did the same in his Garrapata darkroom. I recall being somewhat concerned when I first saw the set-up ---- something about mixing electricity and water!

[David Karp]

Dave, one factor to be considered when viewing prints is the original viewing circumstance. In the case of prints made by Edward during the last dozen years of his career, as well as the Project Prints made by Brett, in both cases they were viewed under the west facing skylight of EW's studio at Wildcat. As to Brett's prints at Pasadena, it may be that they are not representative of his best prints. However, from viewing a great many of Brett's prints, there was some inconsistency in the results; but when he nailed it, the prints were extraordinary! I think it is safe to say that Brett was not as patient a printer as Cole. He chose negatives for his own portfolios that were easy to print, which made sense and provided a level of consistency, but still one-off.

The prints at your college were made on Haloid Industro contact paper manufactured by Xerox. As you note, the paper was not as warm as the Convira paper that Edward favored earlier. For sure, Brett's printing style was different from that of his father, especially when he moved away from contact printing and began enlarging with a point source light later in his career. Those prints were often high contrast, displaying little or no shadow detail.

Thanks Merg. That is very interesting. Viewing the prints under that light would make a big difference.

I really like the prints on the Haloid Industro paper. It is really very nice.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I've never gone there - below mid 60's. In fact, one of the first thing I installed in my darkroom was a high-quality thermoregulator that kept water temp
inside 1/10th degree F ! But that was for the sake of fussy color printing applications, including precise b&w film masks, which I routinely made before I ever took up black and white photography per se. Nowadays for it, I am less fussy. Gave up on MQ developers long ago, except for a special cooltone tweak I employed for Polygrade V. I did once use them at SLIGHTLY depressed temp for enhancing that greenish Dektol look on Seagull for a limited number of images. Otherwise, I'm one of those folks who actually prefers EW's earlier prints over his later ones, but BW's later work, once he adopted his Seagull license plate. I use a bank of lights in my own inspection area, with varying lumen and color temp options, esp if I'm printing for known display conditions, which I have been known to scope out in advance, replete with meters. But in the museum venues these days I guess you need whiskers like a cat, so you know when you've
bumped into a print on the wall when it's too dark to actually view it.