The AIPAD Show

[Peter Lewin]

Having immersed myself in images for 6 hours yesterday, I feel compelled to post some of my impressions from the annual AIPAD (Assoc. of Int'l Photographic Art Dealers) show at the Park Ave. Armory in New York. Hopefully at least some of you will not find this boring or trite.

First, for those of you with access to Manhattan, I can't recommend the show too highly. At least 100 dealers were represented, what is amazing is the breadth of photography covered. I don't know if there was a single photograph I have seen in any anthology or history of photography book that wasn't there, often in multiple prints. Are you interested in the "alternative processes" of the beginnings of photography in the mid-to-late 1800s? Yes, the works by Fox Talbot, Baldus, Le Gray, etc. are all there, in their albumined and salted glory. Any of the 20th century classics, say Adams, Strand, Penn, Edward Weston or slightly lesser classics like Caponigro, Clift, Brett Weston, etc. you would like to see? They are all there. Is Contemporary your thing? I'm less fluent with the current names, but if 60" x 80" color ink-jet is your thing, please come and feast! I don't think there is a single museum collection in the world which can match AIPAD. And this isn't just gushing, I've attended 7 or 8 of these over the past 12 years or so, and always come away with the same feeling.

The next major impression I had was that not one contemporary photographer produces prints in the range 8x10 through 16x20, and certainly not in silver. Everything new is color, is huge, and is produced as "objects" in a variety of sizes to fit different price ranges! As good marketers, the galleries exhibited the largest size on their display walls, "the better to get your attention with." Then if you were interested in an image and asked, you were given a range of sizes to fit different wallets and different-sized walls. I was really taken with, to name one contemporary photographer, Steven Wilkes. He has replaced Cartier-Bresson's "moment" with a photograph as a "dawn-to-dusk event:" he photographs a scene for 12 hours (i.e. many, many individual digital stills) and then uses Photoshop to magically combine a few, covering the period from sun-rise to dark, into a single seamless photograph, where the lighting on one margin is morning, and on the other margin, evening. I could have had any one of these in at least three sizes, with prices to match. To select two large-format examples (meaning format of the taking camera, not the print!) two photographers I had never heard of, Tetsugo Hyakutake and Daniel Lobdell were represented by huge panoramics, created by stitching together enlarged 4x5 negative scans; incredible detail, the photos could absorb you, but you also need a conference-room wall, or a lobby, to hang them.

Lastly (so as to not write a book!) pricing. The more famous works easily carried 5-figure price tags, the least expensive started around $3,500. It wasn't only the framed works hanging on display. Each dealer had one or more "flip boxes" for lack of a better name, bins in which mounted, matted, and enclosed in plastic sleeves prints were placed vertically, so you could "flip" through them in sequence. One might think that the "major" works were hung, and the less expensive in the bins. Well ... I found myself "flipping" through Weston's for $30,000, Adams's and Strand's and so on, at similar prices, as if I was at a street art fair rummaging through the display boxes. I watched as one woman extracted a gorgeous copy of Strand's "White Fence" (I believe I groaned, at seeing another of my favorites "in person") and she told me that she was calling her husband to come to the show after work, she was thinking of buying it (again, 5-figures) but needed his concurrence, since they collected together. The combined value of the posted prices in any one bin was an absurd number, let alone the total value of all prints in the show.

Which for me opened the whole issue of pricing art. We are well beyond the question of whether photographs are art. But how do you value a print? One dealer mentioned that there were about 1000 copies of Ansel Adams' "Moonrise" in existence. When there are 1000 copies, is each worth five figures? How do you value Steichen's "Steerage" when I saw at least two copies for sale, and know of several in museums? Forget about modern ink-jet prints, where once you have the file, you can print as many perfect copies as you want? (Steven Wilkes, whom I mentioned earlier, and actually spoke to at the show, offers to replace any of his prints you buy if you damage it; on one hand this is showing concern for your $12,000 purchase, but on the other hand underlines the "non-uniqueness" of the image; I got into this discussion with a question about archival permanence.) Or to make things personal, I really loved four photographs which I would have loved to hang on my wall. One was the Strand I mentioned, but it was way out of my price range. The second was "Cannery Buildings, Monterey, 1939" by Alma Lavenson ( a lesser-known member of the 1913 Armory show, and part of the Cunningham, Weston, Adams, Strand set) for a mere $20,000 (also way out of my range), and the two which were "almost feasible, if I don't pay for my daughter's grad school", William Clift's "White House Ruins, Canyon de Chelley" for only $7500, and one from Paul Caponigro's "Stone Henge" portfolio for $5000. But how do you know that the prints are worth that number, and not half that number, or maybe twice that amount? With one-of-a-kind works, the question remains, but is somehow less complicated; with photographs and their multiple copies (especially since both Paul Caponigro and William Clift are still alive and printing, as far as I know) it seems a daunting question. Of course, having a hard time parting with money, I went home without either, but keep wondering...

Well, for anyone who has read this far, "thanks," and if you get a chance, the show runs through Sunday (April 7th).

[bob carnie]

Great read Peter, my friend Stephen Bulger always has a booth at that show, I always miss this event due to business concerns but some year plan to attend.
thanks for your post.
Bob

[Thom Bennett]

Thanks for the virtual visit!

[ShawnHoke]

Thanks for this post, Peter. I live in The area and had forgot about the show!

[andy]

this blog: http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/ has a quick one line description of at least one piece, with price, from every booth at the show--certainly worth flipping through--

[bob carnie]

Thanks Andy

this blog: http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/ has a quick one line description of at least one piece, with price, from every booth at the show--certainly worth flipping through--

[Larry Kellogg]

It's a great show, well worth attending. Did you catch the hand-colored Paul Strand? I believe the shot was of a cherry tree. I think the work was done for a client, early in Strand's career and is nothing like his later work. Unfortunately, I did not write down the name of the dealer.

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks for the post and information. Wish I could see the show. I'm staggered by the prices for some of the work by relatively unknown photographers (or I should say, unknown to me, maybe in the world of fine art they're big names). My wife and I will likely be in NYC soon but unfortunately after the show closes.

[ROL]

Well ... I found myself "flipping" through Weston's for $30,000, Adams's and Strand's and so on, at similar prices, as if I was at a street art fair rummaging through the display boxes.

Reminds me of the box of impeccably mounted and beautifully presented limited edition prints I sit above, on the floor, under my desk, at this very writing . Being GSP's and unknown, they are easily and entirely "worthless".


Your cogent observations are pretty much as I've experienced at major art shows over the last decade – where the newer, unknown, machine produced, un–editioned print trumps anything of more proven lasting and rare value by any acclaimed master of photography. I too, have been met only with blank stares at any mention of archival permanence, and have learned how unimportant it is to a sale (and to keep my mouth shut). If anything, I've concluded that it be very good indeed to have a well connected and/or respected art dealer representing you. Forget it, Jake, it's the art world (apologies to Robert Towne). Thanks for a very even–handed and reasoned read.

[Peter Lewin]

... pretty much as I've experienced at major art shows over the last decade – where the newer, unknown, machine produced, un–editioned print trumps anything of more proven lasting and rare value by any acclaimed master of photography. I too, have been met only with blank stares at any mention of archival permanence...

First, I'm glad that some of you found my write-up to be of interest. When I read ROL's comment, I was a bit worried that perhaps I seemed dismissive of some of the new work, which certainly wasn't the case. Steven Wilkes' work, which I mentioned twice, can be seen at http://www.monroegallery.com/photogr...s-dayintonight. I really liked the images, and found my discussion with Mr. Wilkes fascinating. Without meaning for this to sound like some kind of joke, I was washing my hands in the restroom, looked over at the next sink, and there, identified by his exhibitor's tag, was Mr. Wilkes. With a certain amount of reluctance, I told him how much I enjoyed his images, and rather than simply thank me, he asked me to walk with him back to the booth to look at the work together. He explained how he had started out as an analogue photographer, but as he became more involved with computers and Photoshop, felt the challenge to see what this new technology allowed him to do which had previously been impossible. The result was his series of "time lapse" stills, which as I mentioned earlier, compress an entire day into a single image. I was very impressed that he had found a concept which as far as I know is still unique to him, something rare in photography, and would have been happy to own several of the images.

When I had asked one of the gallery representatives earlier about archival properties, the response was, in terms of my question, very positive: if the image ever faded, or if it was damaged in any way, Mr. Wilkes would replace it with an identical copy. It was that comment which, when I thought about it later, underlined the "double-edged" nature of the medium: how nice that you could have that guarantee, but at the same time, what does it say about the uniqueness of the object that you now own?

Similarly, when I went back yet again to admire the work (and I guess in some imaginary way consider purchasing one, although again I could never justify the actual expenditure, even if the "small version," 40 x 23, was priced at $7500, in terms of work at AIPAD, an almost affordable number) I was bothered by the fact that the images were somehow too perfect, in the same way that a beautiful color postcard image seems somehow less "real" than a more flawed color image, or a black and white print. Ultimately, I guess to use ROL's words, it seemed too "machine-produced," although I know intellectually, and in this case underlined by my talk with the photographer, the work really is a product of Steven Wilkes' mind and technical skill. If I put, say the Paul Caponigro "Stonehenge" B&W 11x14 print next to any of the sizes of Mr. Wilkes' "Jerusalem" (as an example), they are both beautiful, but while I can't articulate it well, one is a photograph, and the other is "something else" which at a simplistic level simply doesn't reflect the same craftsmanship and skill (although I repeat, for emphasis, that both really reflect similar, but different, types of imagination and skill). At the end of the day, this is simply another example of the intellectual issues that digital ink-jet work raises for some of us who were raised on traditional silver, or chromogenic, prints.

Did you catch the hand-colored Paul Strand?

Unfortunately not. The downside of a show this large and wonderful is that after the first couple of hours (and I was there from around 11:30AM to 5:15PM) I simply start to over-load. Instead of spending time in every booth, I start scanning the walls, and make relatively quick judgments about whether to go in and look at all the work in detail, or whether I simply cannot deal with yet another Fox Talbot or Ansel Adams, and move on. Somewhere in that process, I'm afraid that what might have been Strand's only hand-colored print got lost in the shuffle! After you have lost your heart to a print of Strand's "White Fence" or one of Edward Weston's sand dunes, or any of a list of other amazing prints, you're down to "oh well, what's one more Strand to look at...".

And finally, for Brian Ellis: in case you've never seen it, there is a useful website for Photograph Magazine, http://www.photographmag.com/, where you can filter the exhibition listings by location and date, to see which NYC galleries might be showing work of interest while you are in New York. While I have often visited museums, I have been reluctant to visit the photography galleries, feeling unsure how welcoming they would be to someone who loves the medium but isn't about to buy the expensive works they have on display. However, speaking with a number of gallery owners at AIPAD, they all assured me that they welcomed all visitors, most of them are in the business because they love the medium, as I heard one of them say to another owner, "I only wish I didn't have to actually sell the photographs to earn a living." I was surprised at how much time they were willing to spend chatting with me about photographs that we both enjoyed, even knowing (I'm sure they did after a minute or two) that I wasn't a "real customer."