Why do Edward Weston' prints suck?

[Peter Spangenberg]

I prefer to look at E. Weston prints in galleries instead of museums because of the light and the ability to hold them. I will say the show I saw in the Akron Museum a couple of years ago (drawn entirely from the Michael Mattis and Judith Hochberg collection), even though dimly lit, had LOTS of luminous prints. Here's a Pt/Pd one I saw recently in SF that was a real stunner: http://www.scottnicholsgallery.com/a...ale_nude_1922/

[Michael Alpert]

I think we're half-blind, silly old guys. We don't own the prints in museums, and we know absolutely nothing about curatorial responsibility. I realize that it's a pleasure to complain, but we all have amazing access to beautiful, rare works of art without having to pay much of anything to visit them. Yes, the lighting is sometimes dim; but, dear friends, let's get over it.

[Les Rudnick]

I would suggest that if anyone has the opportunity to visit NYC to see the AIPAD show (Association of International Photography Art Dealers) that it will be a great experience. You will have the chance to see a wide variety of vintage prints in much better than museum lighting. Some are framed but many are matted and in plastic sleeves or portfolio boxes that can be viewed individually. You will see more photography in a day or two than traveling to view prints at museums under poor lighting. The show is at the Park Avenue Armory each year in April.

[Sal Santamaura]

I think we're half-blind, silly old guys...

Please speak for yourself. My spectacle-corrected vision, including dark-adaptation, is as good as it was when I was 21, even if the transition from blazing southern California sunlight to museum darkness takes about 12 minutes longer than it did then. I spend far longer than that at an exhibit before looking critically at hung prints.

...we know absolutely nothing about curatorial responsibility...

Again, please speak for yourself. I know plenty about curatorial and conservatorial responsibilities. Last year my wife completed a George Washington University program in museum collections management and care. I followed along with her through all the courses. There wasn't much I didn't already know from previous research, but it validated my prior knowledge and added a few tidbits.

...Yes, the lighting is sometimes dim; but, dear friends, let's get over it.

Let's not. Instead, let's inform the museums that we won't attend or support them if they persist in hanging useless exhibitions. Perhaps that would motivate them to strike a better balance between their conservators' preference for never taking anything out of vaults and Weston's predilection for going dark enough so his prints look best in very bright daylight. He wasn't technically perfect by any means, the highly acidic mats he mounted them on being one shortcoming. But deep-space blackness is incompatible with most others' work too.

[Darin Boville]

I just got back from the deYoung's Modernism show--all paintings. Not a terribly exciting show except for the highly interesting Barnett Newman mini-show inside of it--literally inside of it--the modernism show wraps around it both figuratively and in the gallery layout.

In any event, in looking at some of the word I couldn't help but think that the paintings would look better in slightly brighter light. They were too dull, lacking contrast in the gallery even after eyes adjusted.

Btw, the deYoung had a show called the "Gay Essay" on display as well--documentary work by Anthony Friedkin on some of the more flamboyant gay scenes in LA and San Francisco in the hippie days. Good but not great photography. Probably more interesting as historical documents than as photography, per se.

--Darin

[Peter De Smidt]

Well said, Sal.

[Bill_1856]

Bravo, Sal!

[chris_4622]

I went to a show at the Met in NYC and there was one early print from the very dawn of photography (a Fox-Talbot, maybe) that had a black velvet curtain over it. To see the print, you lifted the curtain. That way the print was exposed to any light only when someone was looking at it. It was a clever way to drastically reduce exposure, since the huge bulk of the time no one was even in the room, but not practical for a big show.

I saw the same presentation with one of his print at the AI.

[MDR]

Watercolours and early photographs are easily damaged by wrong light, some of the older museums lights emit enough UV to use as printing lights for alt-processes, I kid you not, and this is one of the reasons that lenders are so extreme in their demand for low light, not every museum uses the newest and best UV-free lights unfortunately that is. I usually wait 10 minutes to adjust my eyes to the darkness, if I come from a brighter exhibition this usually does the trick. I also like darker prints they seem to reveal their content much slower but also much more intensive. I once stared several minutes at a seemingly dark print and boy was there a lot of detail but it took time to reveal itself.

[mdarnton]

Everyone's a critic. Everyone thinks the world should revolve around them and their tastes and needs. No news here. Like Michael Alpert, I'm grateful for the opportunities I've been given and try not to do a lot of whining.