Why do Edward Weston' prints suck?

[Darin Boville]

I just finished traveling the country from coast to coast but only saw a small number of Edward Weston prints. There are three on display right now in Palo Alto.

All of them were extraordinarily dark. All of them looked like bad test prints, at best.

I've seen much better prints than these from Edward Weston. What's up? I wondered when I saw them whether he was going outside in the bright sunlight when judging print tonalities--and in the dark museum the prints then would look terrible. Or maybe the prints are degrading due to poor fixing?

Thoughts?

--Darin

[Jon Shiu]

I think that was just the style back in the day. If you look at contemporaries prints of the time, such as Imogen's, they have similar dark and soft tonality. If you see a Weston print he made for repro, you will see a brighter more contrastier print.

Jon

[Bill_1856]

Several years ago I made a special trip to Chicago to see an exhibit of EW's late images at AIC. The exhibit was so poorly (meaning dim) lit that they might as well have been cut from the pages of a poorly printed book. Maybe that's what you're seeing.
AIC is off my list forever.

[Steve Sherman]

THe prints could also be printed by one of his sons. Brett liked to print EW's work more contrasty than EW liked Told to me by Kim Weston, EW's grandson, EW made only 6 Pepper # 30 in his lifetime.
There is a code as to how the letters appear on the prints as to whether EW printed them or one of his son's printed the photograph, in which case their were deemed "Project Prints" I saw a Pepper # 30 which Brett printed and must say in was spectacular. Virtually impossible to get that luminosity with modern day materials !

Cheers!

[Kirk Gittings]

Troll much?

[neil poulsen]

One of the outstanding exhibits I've seen was of about 70 of Edward Weston prints at the Los Angeles Museum of Art. It was incredible. Prints did not come across to me as being too dark. Of course, a lot of that has to do with how its curated.

[richardman]

Where in Palo Alto are the EW prints?

[Sal Santamaura]

Why do Edward Weston' prints suck?

They don't. Museum lighting generally sucks. Conservators apparently have the upper hand. And, typically, one finds standard acrylic glazing in frames. That means the dark hole illumination on prints can't compete with general lighting, so one is usually presented with a fantastic mirror image of oneself rather than being able to view the exhibition.

Weston printed dark intentionally to make his work compatible with bright viewing light. This makes things even worse in museums today. I've complained to the Getty, the Huntington and others. Nothing changes. So, if you're interested in seeing his prints as they were intended, your best bet is getting a copy of the Lodima Press book "Edward Weston - Life Work" and reviewing it under high illumination.

[Darin Boville]

Where in Palo Alto are the EW prints?

Cantor Art Museum at Stanford University in Palo Alto. On the second floor, toward the front of the building. There really dark one is by the entrance as you approach from the rear, to your right. The other two are together. To tell the fuller story, the one looks really, really dark. The glove shot looks both dark and lacking contrast. The other has a weird high contrast look. They all look terrible...

It can't be the dim museum light alone since other photos look fine in the same lighting. As I suggested he either printed these prints for much brighter light--like direct sunlight--or they are darkening as they age.

I've seen both Cole's versions and Weston's originals and in neither case do I recall them looking this bad. Quite the opposite.

--Darin

[Darin Boville]

Here's an example from the Denver Art Museum. On the left is a print by Laura Gilpin. Sort of a perfect "zone system" reference print. Darks with details, white that shine but detail where needed. The print glows. Next to it is one of the Westons I'm talking about. It is as dark as it looks. There is little to no detail in those blacks. This is very similar to the print at the Cantor and to the other one I saw (Can't think where right now.) Rather surprising. The close up shots are just crops from the first shot.

What worries me is that the backing board is so very yellow. Same with the other prints I saw.

I'm not on some anti-Weston agenda. Weston is one of my favorite photographers of all time. But what the heck is up with these prints?

--Darin