It is interesting the AA draws such extreme reactions from others. I remember attending the exhibit in Los Angeles and generally enjoying it. After all, there were photos I had not seen before and there were lots of photos. I do remember that a significant number of them (maybe not a lot of them, but way more than I expected) were not up to the technical standards of excellence I had seen in other AA photographs in museums. This, not just from his very early photos, but from some of the later photos also. I took this to be the result of the curator's desire to include photos we had not seen. In a retrospective like this, I think it was a mistake. Why omit more well-known, but clearly superior photos (superior both technically and aesthetically)? And why not be sure to include examples that illustrate the artists' mastery of their medium? (I once saw a wonderful show at MOMA in NY that included two or three AA photos and many many other photos from a variety of artists. I was shocked at the shoddy craft of some of the photographer's whose work was exhibited. AA was clearly superior in this regard to almost all of the others whose works were shown.)
Perhaps a more valid approach would have been to include more comparisions. For example, instead of omitting Monolith, why not include a contact print of the WP negative along with a later enlargement? A later enlargement would be quite interesting, in that it could have been accompanied by a discussion of how the plate was damaged by fire and how subsequent enlargements were cropped, as well as being printed in AA's preferred-at-the-time more dramatic style. I have seen a contact print of that plate and an enlargement. Both are unique and exciting in their own way. It would have been great to see them side by side. I also agree with Brower that, in a retrospective, this sort of comparison, based on what AA considered his best execution of his vision vis a vis an earlier execution would be quite interesting. Let the viewer decide, not the curator. This is a way in which photography is different than other art forms. I saw a wonderful exhibit on my honeymoon of Picasso's evolution as an artist. His work obviously changed tremendously over his lifetime. The changes were exhibited in new works. A photographer can much more easily revisit early works and re-make them to a certain extent. Adams did this and I don't think it is fair to ignore his choices. The curator can clearly have an opinion and state it. However, to be fair to the artist, the curator should present the artist's work as the artist wanted it to be seen. To present mostly versions that had been superseded in the artist's mind by later interpretations is, perhaps, a misrepresentation.
This discussion reminds me of the Brett Weston retrospective I saw in Santa Barbara. It was amazing, stupendous, overwhelming. The images were the best of his best. Contact prints from 8x10 negatives. Enlargements. It did not matter. The photographs were wonderful. Merg Ross and I had a discussion about this, perhaps off forum. He reminded me that the Santa Barbara exhibit was the best of Weston's best. It was work that few photographers have equaled. A later Brett Weston exhibit, in Pasadena, left me mostly cold. Merg reminded me of the magnitude of the Santa Barbara showing, and that like other photographers, not all of Weston's work was monumental, but due to his fame and importance as an artist lesser works will still be shown. The AA exhibit could have been closer to the Santa Barbara Weston exhibit, but it was not. I think that was due to the curation rather than the ability of the artist.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by tgtaylor
Bookmarks