Is Edward Weston falling "out of favor?"

[Moopheus]

All of which raises the question:

What the heck is up with the Daybooks?

I suspect they need re-editing but it would also seem a valuable bit of scholarship to do so. Is something/someone blocking a new version, is someone already working on it, or is there really not enough interest?

--Darin

I'd guess not enough interest. I work for an academic publisher, and I can tell you that that would not be an easy or cheap thing to do, particularly if you wanted to go back to the original manuscripts and do a new transcription. You would need to be sure of a market of a few thousand copies for an expensive edition. The CCP in AZ says they control the rights for the photos, not clear who would have the say for the text (family heirs?).

I worked on an online repository for some 19th century poetry where we have scans of the manuscripts presented with transcripts of the text. It's pretty cool and if someone has a small fortune to donate, that would be a way to go too.

[John Jarosz]

His minimalist technique seems like it would be too easy... Until you try it.

Absolutely true. And minimalism is not in favor right now. You need pizazz, marketing, explosions and gratuitous sex in order to gain a spot in the galleries.

Oh, and I left out photoshop.........

john

[Drew Wiley]

I'd be more worried about finding bookstores in this day and age where someone can actually look at an expensive edition than about someone coming up with
the money to publish it. Weston is, after all, pretty damn famous. But who wants to order something expensive sight unseen from Amazon just to have it land on their doorstep with a crushed corner or a page creased?

[Old-N-Feeble]

At the risk of some flaming... EW was never really my cup-of-tea.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd describe EW's vision as meticulously "poised", certainly not minimalist. There's a lot going on if you are attuned to the nuances, both visually and subconsciously. But this is somewhat dependent on seeing the prints in person. When his prints weren't wholly successful, I'd describe their look as "clinical", at least his later "post-pictorial" ones. I do find myself quite disappointed whenever the art establishment tries to drum up interest by playing the same card as advertising, namely, "gotcha" imaging, intended to grab your attention instantly, but not for the duration. Big, loud, and so routinely, monotonously controversial that nobody gives a damn anymore.

[Kirk Gittings]

Not minimalist by any stretch of my imagination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimalism. You would have to go to Sugimoto's ocean/horizon series I think to see something like minimalism in photography. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/570268371536572347/

[Drew Wiley]

I'd have trouble even calling him "minimalist", Kirk. He had a template for sure. But the timing of the details in the waves etc. I ran into the same thing with one of my own prints. They called the web image minimalist, but when they saw the real thing (a 30x40 Ciba of a lake surface loaded with intricate wave detail that doesn't show on small scale at all - they sure changed their mind fast). Besides Sugimoto, some of Robert Adam's surf scenes come across utterly bland in book form, but highly nuanced in the real prints. Kinda like calling Rothko minimalist. I'd call him just the opposite - but one has to resonate with the painting in the first place, or somehow be attuned to the same subconscious wave length. And his paintings hit me in the gut - hard. Even the composition is complex. It takes a helluva lot more skill to paint a seemingly rough random edge or line which constantly intrigues than a conspicuous pattern.

[Merg Ross]

All of which raises the question:

What the heck is up with the Daybooks?

I suspect they need re-editing but it would also seem a valuable bit of scholarship to do so. Is something/someone blocking a new version, is someone already working on it, or is there really not enough interest?

--Darin

Edward asked Nancy Newhall to edit his Daybooks, also Dody prior to that. There was an effort by his fans to raise money for publication while Edward was alive, but when the checks came in he said that did not seem the right way to go about publishing; the checks were all returned.

It was fortunate that someone who knew Edward well was able to edit the Daybooks. Re-editing is not necessary nor is a new version. The Daybooks are what they are. Imagine a Ben Maddow version of the Daybooks; his biography of Weston is probably the worst ever written.

Shortly after Edward died, the heirs proposed that Eastman House oversee publication of the Daybooks in collaboration with Horizon Press. Those were the first editions, Aperture printed a second.

[Drew Wiley]

Hmm... Somebody sure did a good job. It was a classic publication. Guess the part which most impressed me was EW's struggle to figure out why he photographed
a section of one particular palm trunk and not another. I've seen a vintage print of that very subject. Don't know if there is an answer to why - but that is one
compelling image (minimal or not)!

[Darin Boville]

It was fortunate that someone who knew Edward well was able to edit the Daybooks. Re-editing is not necessary nor is a new version.

Well, I guess I'm not yet convinced. Who knows what surprises the original Daybooks might hold, especially if edited by someone *without* a personal connection to Weston, and especially now so many years later when readers' view of sex, etc has changed so much.

It would be a treasure trove for all things Weston and as one of the most important photographers of the 20th Century it certainly deserves to be done.

I wonder what sort of funding would make such a project possible?

--Darin