George Eastman House

[neil poulsen]

Our son had his wedding near Rochester, so for weeks, I eagerly looked forward to visiting the George Eastman House. They have an enormous collection of photographs in their underground vaults.

I think that I found about five of what I would call, vintage photographs. One was "The Steerage", so that was neat. They had a Norman Rockwell exhibit, and I liked their technology room and toured the mansion.

But overall, I was vastly disappointed.

I'm amazed that they don't display more of their outstanding still photography collection. What the heck do they have it for, if they don't display it?

[jeroldharter]

I visited there ~25 years ago and saw my first Ansel Adams print which was very inspirational.

[Wayne Aho]

I think there is a tremendous amount of material they have in storage, and a somewhat small museum to display it.

I went there a few years ago, and they had a Daguerreotype exhibit of Southworth and Hawes. It was excellent, but the other venues were small. It appears the the house is shown in its historical state, but the museum behind it is limited in size. I haven't tried this, but I understand that if you make arrangements ahead of time, you can view specific items such as cameras and photos.
By the way, the daguerreotype exhibit started my research into historical photography, and then I ended up getting into collodion wet-plate. I wish I lived nearby so I could attend a lot of the events, and research more of the archives.

Due to limited space in a residential area, most of the museum storage is below ground.

Wayne

[Merg Ross]

Unfortunately they have a vast and excellent collection, with inadequate exhibition space. When I visited many years ago, it was possible to make arrangements to view prints from the collection in an upstairs room. I recall spending about three hours with some wonderful images.

The facility is better suited to research purposes than as a place for extensive exhibitions of photography. The CCP in Tucson is in a somewhat similar situation when one compares the vast collection to available exhibition space. Again, an excellent place for research.

[Frank Petronio]

The prissy old biddies and local blue hairs insisted on preserving Eastman's house, to the point of wanting to sell off the photo collection so they could preserve George's treasured strands of dental floss and what not. So now you have this giant sarcophagus/mansion that sits underutilized while they sunk the collection three stories underground outside the back door. Not to mention the museum preservationists are afraid of light, so exhibits are lit with 15-watt bulbs... the place gives me a headache. But if you're into the interior design choices of a closeted homosexual attempting to please his Momma while also being the pillar of the community... this would be the Mother Lode.

It's always fun to show people his desk where he shot himself, unfortunately that part isn't in the official tour.

Good bookstore with lots of photo kitschy toys. Occasionally a good, small show in the front gallery. The camera display is nice enough (but really, some of us could do as well, lol). The main shows are usually disjointed, traveling exhibits, and lit really poorly.

Visual Studies usually has some oddball work showing, emphasis on "odd". There is an attempt at colorful "retired-engineer as artist" photo gallery a block behind the Eastman, it is good to show support but.... A nicer gallery is a few blocks away at BookSmart Studios. And now the original owner of Light Impressions have opened Luimiere Photo, along with their own gallery (just had a Ralph Gibson show that was good) with Gallery R opening next door (mostly RIT MFA stuff).

It's still pretty uneven but you actually can see some decent work if you time it right.

By all means please come to Rochester. See the people you've displaced and made poor every time you load up with Ilford or that vile Fuji stuff.

[Richard Wasserman]

And if you're visiting the Eastman House you can also take a short drive to the town of Le Roy and see the Jello Museum. Jello used to buy gelatin from Kodak—so there is a connection.

[Brian C. Miller]

By all means please come to Rochester. See the people you've displaced and made poor every time you load up with Ilford or that vile Fuji stuff.

Or used a digital camera. Or snapped a pic with your cell phone. Or sketched something with paper and pencil. Or described something with words. Or wrote your representatives to not support the American silver-and-gelatin business preservation act. You lousy consumers and voters should kneel at the gates of Kodak to beg and plead for forgiveness.

Oh, and buy some film and get some prints made while you're visiting.

[Halford]

By all means please come to Rochester. See the people you've displaced and made poor every time you load up with Ilford or that vile Fuji stuff.

Because of course THOSE companies don't have employees who need their jobs either...

Sorry but Kodak can't be bothered to distribute film in my country AT ALL any more, so the tiny number of stores who stock it have to import it themselves -- and if I want Kodak sheet film I'm on my own.

And this company is somehow entitled to my money why again?

(That said I've just bought a bunch of Portra 400 because it's an awesome film - but boy do they make it difficult for me to do that).

The sort of comment quoted above just leaves me cold, despite real sympathy for the Kodak workers and the Rochester region, where I have a number of particularly good friends.

Other film manufacturers and their customers are not your enemy here.

[cdholden]

<snip>
or that vile Fuji stuff.

Acros wouldn't be vile if they would quit putting that hole in the corner of their sheet film.
I do like it in the TLR. :)

[Steve Smith]

By all means please come to Rochester. See the people you've displaced and made poor every time you load up with Ilford or that vile Fuji stuff.

?


Steve.

[Brian Ellis]

Our son had his wedding near Rochester, so for weeks, I eagerly looked forward to visiting the George Eastman House. They have an enormous collection of photographs in their underground vaults.

I think that I found about five of what I would call, vintage photographs. One was "The Steerage", so that was neat. They had a Norman Rockwell exhibit, and I liked their technology room and toured the mansion.

But overall, I was vastly disappointed.

I'm amazed that they don't display more of their outstanding still photography collection. What the heck do they have it for, if they don't display it?

It's the latest thinking in curatorial circles - as long as you never display a print it won't deteriorate. And deterioration would be a shame because then nobody would be able to see the print. So to prevent deterioration keep it stored in total darkness so that nobody will be able to see the print. And if you do make the mistake of displaying it, at least turn the lights down so low that it can't really be seen.

[Robert Hughes]

...to prevent deterioration keep it stored in total darkness so that nobody will be able to see the print.
Is this a problem? Eh, no. Museums can make display print copies that are indistinguishable from the originals for 99% of the public, and provide archival backups for historians. If you really want to see the original you can arrange for a private viewing with museum staff.

I don't see a downside to this solution.

[Frank Petronio]

Well it's only a photo, just click and do another one.

[John Jarosz]

Not to mention the museum preservationists are afraid of light, so exhibits are lit with 15-watt bulbs...


if you do make the mistake of displaying it, at least turn the lights down so low that it can't really be seen.

This is a continual complaint of mine at almost every institution I go to. Curators have an inflated opinion of their esteemed knowledge. I think everyone should get miner's hat with lights to wear at the exhibits.

and as for this:

Is this a problem? Eh, no. Museums can make display print copies that are indistinguishable from the originals for 99% of the public,

That's not why I go to a museum. I go to see the real thing. And I do expect to be able to actually see it.

Curators are also trying to abolish dry mounting. Why? I can't imagine. Maybe it's so they can say the prints are too delicate to be handled and THAT's why individual viewing is not possible.

Curators are like unmarried marriage counselors or child psychologists that don't have kids.

john

[Ron Stowell]

Forty years ago the Eastman house was a interesting place to visit: good camera collection and sometimes good photo display. I have visited a couple of times in the past few years and the place is a major disappointment.
If you do visit Rochester, don't forget that the Finger Lakes wine country is a short drive from Rochester and you are always welcome.