Irving Penn show in DC

[Bruce Watson]

I saw the Irving Penn: Platinum Prints (http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/index.shtm#penn) exhibit at the west wing of the National Gallery of Art in DC over the weekend. Penn himself indicated that he made these prints to show what he could really do. Naturally then I had high expectations of this exhibit. I came away disappointed and perplexed.

On the technical side, I expected to see masterful platinum/palladium printing. I did not. What I saw was good solid blacks (impressive for platinum/palladium) with a lack of shadow detail. Penn is revered as a fashion photographer, yet print after print had dark clothes (the fashions) that went black with no texture -- no shadow detail. For a fashion photograph to not show the fashions is, well, what is that?

Also, many a forehead had completely blown out highlights. Contrast levels were very harsh on most prints. It's almost like he had an aversion to midtones. And here I thought the raison d'être of platinum printing was smooth midtones.

On the aesthetics side, I found much of his portraiture to be, well, um... weak. He seemed to think that boring his subjects into a blank stare at the camera lens revealed something about them. To me, it revealed more about them being bored by the photographer. The best of the portraits I found were those of his wife, and the one of Pablo Casals (I think it was) both of whom seemed to refuse to play that game.

I was shocked. I've been to many exhibits by many photographers, unknowns to well knowns. Always seeing the original prints the way the artist intended them has left me more impressed. Until this exhibit. I was left with the distinct impression that the emperor has no clothes.

So, can any of you who have seen this exhibit enlighten me? Why is Penn so well regarded? Can any of you who have seen the exhibit tell me your impressions of the prints? I want to believe, but I'm having a hard time with this one.

[Christopher Perez]

Your experience reminds me of a Helmut Newton exhibit I once viewed in LA back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. In the Helmut case, whoever printed his 20x24inch prints didn't know what they were doing. The edges of the print weren't in focus. The lack of grain detail gave the poor print job away.

Here these guys are supposed to be so great, and our standards get set so high, that I'm easily disappointed at the lack of attention to seemingly the simplest technical details.

I think its called being in the right place at the right time and getting published frequently. Which leads to fame. Sometimes warranted. Sometimes... well...

[Gary Samson]

I was as dissapointed in the show as you were. I made the trip to Washington from New Hampshire specifically to see the Penn exhibit and found the quality of the prints to be excessive in contrast. In a word, garrish! The subtle tonal quaities that characterize a platinum print were completing lacking and the interpretive text accompaning the show seemed to be completely out of sync with the images presented. I really question the photographic knowledge of the curator who prepared the show because these prints do not represent what is possible with the platinum printing medium, yet the exhibit text constantly refered to Penn's ability to reveal more detail thru the the use of platinum printing method as a opposed to a standard silver print.
Unfortunately the reviews of this show in the Washington Post and elsewhere where completely in praise of the show and did not bring any kind of a critical eye to the print quality. Had Penn's photographs been printed by someone of the technical calibre of Dick Arentz, Penn would have been much better served.

[Matt Miller]

Is Jim talking about the same show here?:

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=18348&highlight=irving+penn

Just goes to show you how different people have different tastes. You always have to see it with your own eyes.

[Steven Barall]

Penn is so highly regarded because he was an original thinker. He did things for the first time. He was a constant scientist in search of a method, a constant student in search of ideas waiting to made tangible and a constant artist in search of newness in the oldness of photography. Penn was an inventor looking in all directions. Penn was also not affraid to change his eyes and that's not insignificant considering that he was a very successful commercial photographer.

If you are going to go to photo shows with a densitomoter to measure how much you like the photos you aren't really going to see anything. Life's a carnival. And to think that if some darkroom techie guy had worked for Penn, Penn would have been better served as an artist is just not an informed opinion. It's like discounting Van Gogh because he didn't have Corel Paint and a Wacom Cintiq tablet. Penn was only Penn. Everything happens in it's own time and art comes from artists and not things or places or lab techs or portrait sitters.

Can you look at Penn's photos and see his time in them, those things that imformed him? I think so. Any time can speak to us in our time. Universal. Art. Groovy.

[domenico Foschi]

Steven, you couldn't have said it better.

[Kevin M Bourque]

Penn "was".....actually "is" still with us, to the best of my knowledge. Seems like I just saw his name listed as a presenter at a workshop somewhere.

Steven, you make some good points. However, if these prints are being touted as a tour-de-force of the printers art, then by golly, they should be (or the descriptions ought to be changed).

I haven't seen the show so I'm only going by what I've heard here.

[Frank Petronio]

I haven't seen many Penn prints in real life, other than poorly displayed ones at the Eastman House (everything at the Eastman House is poorly displayed in my opinion...) so I can't speak directly about the show. But I do know that from the 50s to the 70s there was a overall trend for New Yorkers to do their printing harsh and "street style" as a counter to the long, smooth tonal ranges of the west coast landscape photogs.

So Penn making his prints with Platinum may have more to do with making them more valuable and unique than exploiting the qualities of the medium. He probably could have printed on Silver to the same effect but without commanding as high a price tag back in the 70s, when Platinum prints were very rare.

Now I can't walk into a gallery without tripping over stacks of Platinum prints...

[Bruce Watson]

Thanks Frank. That might just be it.

[Ellis Vener]

Bruce, I think your review says more about you and what your expectations about what a photograph should look like than it does about Irving Penn's work and the way he sees. Historically he has always printed the way you describe -lots of contrast and minimal shadow detail. The photograph is never the thing photographed. it is a personal interpretation of that person, place or thing. that is the way he photographically "sees" and you don't like it . I have no problems with that, you've done what a competent reviewer should do: communicate your personal impressions of the work in a coherent readable manner and justified those impressions with t your criteria. you have also made me wantto see the work for myself.

As for Frank P.'s comment, Penn has been making platinum or platinum/pallium prints for a couple of decades at least. I have my doubts that he needs to artificially drive up the value of his work.

[Jim_3565]

"Is Jim talking about the same show here?:" -------Matt Miller

Such violently negative reactions had me wondering. Maybe I was suffering from severe macular degeneration that day. Perhaps diabetic retinopathy or a cataract had clouded my vision. So, I went back down to the National Gallery today in order to look at the prints again. The show closes tomorrow.

I agree that some (particular emphasis on that word) of the prints have too much contrast for my taste. I also will state that some of the highlights are certainly pushing the envelope. I do not agree, however, that any of them is "completely blown out". I would have printed them down a very little bit just to cool them off tonally, but they all have detail. Penn has a flair for the dramatic and he made great efforts to imbue these prints with dramatic contrast. I have no doubt that all aspects of the process were under his complete control and that nothing was left to chance. If the highlights are what appears to my eye a little hot, it's because he wanted them that way.

Where I must strenously disagree with Bruce is with regard to the shadows. I looked at every print very carefully in order to find plugged shadows. I couldn't. In fact, remarkable detail was present everywhere. In the picture of the two hooded Moroccan guedras (http://www.nga.gov/exhibitions/2005/penn/penn_ss10.shtm), the viewer can see the complete outline of their faces through the hoods. You have to look, but the detail is there. (It doesn't show in any reproduction.) I think the lighting is a big part of the problem with the shadows. In the portrait of Marc Chagall, who is lying on his side and leaning on his elbow wearing a dark suit, every fold of cloth in the suit is visible. Ditto the portrait of George Lyons and H.L. Mencken as well as the portrait of Edmund Wilson (my personal favorite in the show).

There is very little platinum work out there that I like. To me, phrases like "subtle highlight detail" and "smooth midtones" are usually (strong emphasis on 'usually'-it's not always true) rationalizations for washed out, weak printing with no blacks at all, mushy highlights and complete mud and lack of local contrast in every zone below middle gray.

Yes, some of these Penn platinums had a 'chalk and soot' feel to them. Yes, some of them had too much contrast. I also have real problems with the great degree of enlargement in nearly all of them. I wanted them all to be contact prints.

But, everything taken on balance, I have to call these the most effective platinum/palladium prints I've yet seen. Despite the low light levels, they make for an enthralling show. I'll just have to agree to disagree with anyone who feels differently about it.

[Bruce Watson]

Jim,

I agree that we disagree on the Penn prints, and I'm glad that you posted.

When I say blown out highlights, I mean a spot on a subject's forehead that goes to paper white, where the wrinkles and spots in the skin cease to exist. No detail and paper white to me is a blown highlight. So we differ there.

When I say lack of shadow detail, I'm talking about being able to see the texture of the clothes. Yes, you can mostly see the gross detail - the folds in the cloth. But the cloth itself goes to black. When you are talking about fashion, this is part of it. You need to be able to tell the difference in the photograph between silk and wool, and I couldn't, because Penn didn't print it.

The most effective platinum prints I've seen were in an exhibition of Edward Weston prints shown at the Phillips Collection several years ago. Those prints were highly impressive with solid blacks, excellent shadow detail, excellent tonality, and beautiful airy highlights. So I've seen good platinum printing before. I just didn't see it at this exhibit.

Not that I don't understand what you are talking about. No doubt, these are strong prints. No doubt, they have extraordinary blacks. No doubt they have dramatic contrast in spades. No doubt they all have an edgy, almost gritty "feel" to them. No doubt these prints are true to Penn's vision.

But there's no doubt that Penn's vision is one I don't share. But now I think I have a clue as to why other people do like his vision. More understanding is a good thing.