Brett Weston Exhibition/April-Sept. 2016, Pasadena, CA

[Merg Ross]

Merg, do you know if there are any plans for this exhibit to travel to other venues? There was nothing about it in the brochure as far as I could see (which may, admittedly, not be very far).

Steve, I have not heard of any plans for this exhibition to travel.

[Merg Ross]

Just a reminder. Exhibit closes on Sunday, September 11, 2016.

[David Karp]

Thanks Merg. I appreciate the reminder. I really want to see this and have not done so!

[faberryman]

I first saw Brett Weston's work in 1976 at an exhibit in Paris. It has served as an inspiration to me for over 40 years. Phenomenal print quality. It is a must see exhibit.

[Merg Ross]

Thanks Merg. I appreciate the reminder. I really want to see this and have not done so!

Dave, I was thinking of you. I hope you have an opportunity to view the exhibition, and perhaps report back.

Best,
Merg

[LabRat]

Thanks for posting this, Merg!!!

I saw the show a few weeks ago, and was moved/inspired... I wish more contemporary photography would follow his lead...

Thanks again!!!

Steve K

[David Karp]

Merg,

I saw it yesterday. Finally!

It was an interesting exhibit. I am not sure what to think of it. Here is why.

Remember the large show at the Santa Barbara art museum? I walked out of that show amazed, impressed, overwhelmed, and inspired. It was a much larger show, with a broad variety of Brett's photographs.

The Pasadena show was smaller, with a narrower focus -- It was concentrated on close up works, details, and the like. I believe nearly 1/2 of the photos had not been exhibited to the public before. Perhaps that is the difference. I felt that some of the photos were remarkable. Just wonderful. Some of the others, not. At least to me. I hate to say that as an admirer of the man's work and as someone without any hint of his experience or accomplishment. But honestly, that was how I felt as I walked away. I am happy that I went. Some of the work, including photos of cracked paint, broken glass, a torn leaf, a wall, details from perhaps Weston Beach, and his famous stairway from San Francisco were just awesome.

Another thing I found interesting was the printing. These were uniformly darker than some of the other Brett prints I have seen, more reminiscent of Edward's prints, than some other examples I have seen. The best comparison I have seen is a portfolio of Edward's work that Brett printed not long before Edward passed. Brett's interpretations were on a more neutral or colder toned paper and not printed as dark as examples of the same photographs I have seen printed by Edward. My college has a nearly complete set of that portfolio on display in the library. It is nice to be able to drop in and look at them from time to time.

Perhaps some of Brett's photos I have seen were more the exception? I always felt his printing style was bolder than his father's.

I write some of these words with trepidation, given my admiration of Brett's work and my relative lack of experience. I am very interested in your thoughts Merg. If not of the exhibit, but in general.

[Merg Ross]

Merg,

I saw it yesterday. Finally!

It was an interesting exhibit. I am not sure what to think of it. Here is why.

Remember the large show at the Santa Barbara art museum? I walked out of that show amazed, impressed, overwhelmed, and inspired. It was a much larger show, with a broad variety of Brett's photographs.

The Pasadena show was smaller, with a narrower focus -- It was concentrated on close up works, details, and the like. I believe nearly 1/2 of the photos had not been exhibited to the public before. Perhaps that is the difference. I felt that some of the photos were remarkable. Just wonderful. Some of the others, not. At least to me. I hate to say that as an admirer of the man's work and as someone without any hint of his experience or accomplishment. But honestly, that was how I felt as I walked away. I am happy that I went. Some of the work, including photos of cracked paint, broken glass, a torn leaf, a wall, details from perhaps Weston Beach, and his famous stairway from San Francisco were just awesome.

Another thing I found interesting was the printing. These were uniformly darker than some of the other Brett prints I have seen, more reminiscent of Edward's prints, than some other examples I have seen. The best comparison I have seen is a portfolio of Edward's work that Brett printed not long before Edward passed. Brett's interpretations were on a more neutral or colder toned paper and not printed as dark as examples of the same photographs I have seen printed by Edward. My college has a nearly complete set of that portfolio on display in the library. It is nice to be able to drop in and look at them from time to time.

Perhaps some of Brett's photos I have seen were more the exception? I always felt his printing style was bolder than his father's.

I write some of these words with trepidation, given my admiration of Brett's work and my relative lack of experience. I am very interested in your thoughts Merg. If not of the exhibit, but in general.

Dave,

Thank you for sharing your impression of the exhibition. I know that we have discussed Brett in the past, and your thoughts are very much appreciated.

I remember well the 2009 exhibition at the Santa Barbara Museum, and had the pleasure of being on the opening night panel with Scott Nichols. It was the exhibit that Brett deserved, and in my opinion will be very difficult to surpass. You walked out of that show, as many did, "amazed. impressed, overwhelmed, and inspired". You were among those fortunate enough to view the breadth of Brett Weston's vision, almost seven decades worth. I thought at the time, it may not happen again; the Pasadena exhibition is proof. I did not, as you did, view the exhibition, however the title alone was a harbinger of what will perhaps define Brett in the short term. As so often happens, he will be defined by a curatorial staff with a theme, while missing the big picture.

In Brett's case this has happened for two reasons. First, he was probably one of the most prolific photographers of the genre in history. Second, when he died, his work, all of it, ended up in one place; the good and bad together. He had the time to destroy negatives, but not so his prints. He was ruthless in the destruction of prints, but time ran out. The current exhibition is the result; beware of prints that have not been exhibited before, there may be a good reason.

Dave, thanks again. I will give thought to the second item in your post, the prints.

Merg

[Darin Boville]

Many of the prints I see of Edwards (all over the country) also seem quite dark, specially in the typical dim museum lighting. We've talked about this before but my theory is that Edward viewed them in much brighter light.

--Darin

[LabRat]

Many of the prints I see of Edwards (all over the country) also seem quite dark, specially in the typical dim museum lighting. We've talked about this before but my theory is that Edward viewed them in much brighter light.

--Darin

Yes, I also have noticed that E's prints sometimes tended to be sometimes dark or flat (but sometimes not), but I think one reason might be that when working in an unheated lab, prints can suffer loss of Dmax when using a cool/cold print developer, so one might compensate by adding more exposure to get a better black or much longer development (but often at a cost of overall contrast)... Some of his more brilliant contrast prints (such as sand dune studies) I suspect were printed during warm summer months...

Steve K