Walker Evans

[Emrehan Zeybekoglu]

Greetings:
I have just noticed that in the two different editions of Walker Evans, one published by Aperture, the Masters of Photography Series (1993), and the other the Phaidon edition (2001), the photograph titled "Fields Family Cabin" is printed differently. The former (p. 63.), having much higher values, looks almost washed out compared to the latter (p. 91.). Is this normal, do you think? I wonder why the two editions differ so much. I think publishers should adhere to what the author/photographer prefers in his/her lifetime. Your comments are welcome.

[Jerry Flynn]

A few years ago, at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts (which has a very large collection of Evans prints), I saw comparisons of specific prints made during Evans' lifetime. There was a marked difference between the later prints, printed by others (including Lee Freidlander who is no slouch of a printer) but signed by Evans. Even in earlier days, Evans had others print his work. I do not believe he was fixated on print quality to the extent of the West Coast group of the same period - not that he didn't care, it just might not have been as important.

As to the editors of the books? Maybe it is a question of to which prints they had access or a preference of "vintage" over "better" print perhaps? But if the artist has signed both, I do not think there is an inherent vio;lation of the artist's intentions.

[Mark Sawyer]

Reproduction quality in publications varies wildly; I've even noticed small differences in the same edition, presumably from copies at either end of the press run.

One thing I'm often amused by is reproductions of "different contrast" prints from the same negative in photography textbooks. As often as not, the press guy doesn't know the context of the photographs, and corrects them all to the same ("normal") contrast...

[Bill_1856]

Like other documentary photographers, Walker Evans' photographs are about content not about presentation. In other words: "It don't matter."

[Alec Jones]

The photographs talken by Evans during his time in Hale County, AL were done while he was still contracted with the FSA. Although he took time out from specific FSA projects, the ownership of these pics remained with the Government. Copies from those negatives are available at modest cost today from the Library of Congress.

I too have been disappointed by some of the prints made / copied from those negs. A current display of some of his Hale County work is currently being shown at the Montgomery [AL] Museum of Art. Several of those prints are severely cropped from the versions previously shown and/or published. Apparently, there's no limit to how those images can be butchered. That's life.

[paulr]

"Like other documentary photographers, Walker Evans' photographs are about content not about presentation. In other words: "It don't matter.""

Walker obviously agreed with you, although I'm not alone in finding his work gorgeous on a lot of levels ... and some of the prints I've seen of his work are stunning. It might not matter to the primary thing he was trying to do .... but it sure seems to matter to some of the things he also does, intentionally or not.

A friend of mine has a huge collection of 19th and 20th century photographs, including a bunch of Evans prints. Some of these were printed by Walker, others not, some were vintage, others not. There was a huge range of quality, ranging from barely better than newsprint to prints every bit as lush as the Weston prints they hung next to. Sadly, the vintage ones printed by Walker tended to be the worst. But who knows their history ... they could have been made in motel bathrooms for all I know.