And in this day, it's possible to make copies that are almost indistinguishable from the originals. If the originals are so darn valuable, then make copies and mount those. 99.9% of the people viewing the show will never notice. And they will save zillions on their damn insurance. And viewers will actually be able to see the prints. For a change!
john
Well, I'm glad that I saw them. I would rather see originals than copies, even if it means dimmer than optimal lighting. Originally, I was going to mention something about the lighting to the staff, but it probably wasn't their decision, and I was thrilled that they put on a show with some terrific LF photography. That's rare in these parts.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
was there a "theme" to the show, or just a collection of his prints.
One of the best ways to see Ansel's stuff is to stop in Santa Fe if you are ever out that way and walk around the galleries. They have more Ansel Adam's prints for sale than most galleries have in a show.
Not to belabor Adam’s gallery exhibits and his work, but is what led me to want to see his work…
was that I received a ‘special-edition’, book bound, of his works.
I was pleasantly pleased with the quality of the book, which led me to want to see ‘original’s’ of his work, and to be able to do mental comparisons with these gallery presentations, and the bound-book versions.
You can imagine the disappointment one experiences, when these works are presented so dimly and poorly, and the ‘underwhelming rush’ of having neither the chance to see what the ‘real-thing’ looked like,
and having expended so much time and effort, and to be so disappointed, when one easily receives more pleasure viewing the book copy presentations…
I felt that I might as well have viewing copies of the original made out of Lego blocks, for having not been able to see the “real thing” as it was intended to be viewed….
and it was never clearly explained if the pieces that were being displayed were ‘original’ works or copies…
I agree, it would be far more pleasurable to view masterful made copies, under normal levels of illumination, than to view the ‘original’ in a coal bin.
Far too often, our expectations at having the ‘opportunity’ to view what we are led to perceive to be ‘original’ works, are often met with the larger disappointment of the way these works are presented…
Too often, I have been left with another feeling of having been ‘taken-in’ again by the hype and never really having the experience of viewing the original work under optimal viewing conditions.
Would you not expect that the gallery or sponsor would have the forthrightness to post a cautionary or warning that would announce to viewers:
“Caution, What You Will See Must Be Viewed Under Less-than-Favorable Viewing Conditions”.
Imagine if you will by way of comparison, going to a movie, and having to watch the entire presentation with a projection bulb or light beam, at ¼ of the normal viewing brightness, and only the lightest and whitest parts of the film are visible.
Just to be able to say you have seen the works of a master, under conditions that only allowed one to view those works as though you were a block away is not something most people would be happy to announce.
In Oshkosh this morning to see the exhibit. My lovely wife was willing to spend twelve hours in a car on our anniversary weekend to get here from central illinois.
I am a casual viewer. I know what I like and don't like. Someday soon I hope to be one of those fifty-something old duffers taking pictures of the same tired subjects. Does anybody have suggestions on how to see this more critically. By that I mean on a deeper level-in a way that may help develop my own style and technique. Not to copy his but perhaps to see and feel what the artist was trying to convey.
Please be kind. I am new here and trying to learn. Help make this journey worthwhile.
Thanks
Ken
Hi Ken, I'm a 60 year old duffer and I spend 40 hours a week looking for thngs nobody has ever seen or will ever see, in light that's once in a lifetime.. Ansel Adams did this in his time with heavy, cumbersome equipment. The fact that a million people went to his spots and tried to copy him doesn't detract from his work...he was a great photographer..Originally Posted by knjkrock
In almost all aspects of photography there have been early practitioners that produced photographs that were, at the time, leading edge. Cartier-Bresson, Paul Strand, Alfred Stieglitz, Ansel Adams, to name a few are some of those photographers. In the intervening years those images and style have been copied so much that they now appear trite. That was not the case when those photos were first displayed. I think you need to take a historical perspective when viewing them. The same can be said for 19th century practitioners as well. In the 19th century photography wasn't really accepted as an art medium. In the early and middle 20th century photography became to be accepted as an art medium largely due to those same aforementioned photographers (along with others I haven't named but the list is quite long).
My opinion, anyway
John
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks