Ed Burtynsky at the AGO ...

[Ron Bose]

I just got home from one of the most stunning photo-exhibits I have ever seen.

Ed Burtynsky, a Toronto LF photographer is exhibiting his works at the Art Gallery of Ontario, but closes on April 4th.

His prints from 8x10 and 4x5 are 40"x50" in colour and are absolutely amazing.

If you can get to Toronto in the next week you have to go to this exhibit ...

An absolute 'must see' ....

[tim atherton]

"His prints from 8x10 and 4x5 are 40"x50" in colour and are absolutely amazing. "

Helps when you own your own photo lab... :-)

It's pretty cool work isn't it - wonderful photogorphy - Ed is a neat guy.

[Ron Bose]

In the video presentation he lamented handing in his student card once he'd graduated from Ryerson, because it meant that he no longer had access to their colour print facilities. He had had quite a few problems trying to create stable colour prints in his home colour darkroom. He then thought that other photographers were probably having the same problems and this lead to him starting up Toronto Image Works. Then colour photographers would have access to high-quality printing facilities.

I think the exhibition will be on in Ottawa until May 4th according to the website.

Tim, you gotta get on a plane and see it for yourself ....

[tim atherton]

"Tim, you gotta get on a plane and see it for yourself ...."

I know... I saw a number of them "back stage" at the National Gallery after his exhibit of the work there last year, but not actually on display

"I think the exhibition will be on in Ottawa until May 4th according to the website"

Was that the National Gallery? that was 2003 I think

[Ed Burlew]

The composition is unremarkable. His photos are really nothing more than snapshots made very large. I have seen his work on several occassions including during its preparation in his lab. I have seen dust and hair shadows in the prints. His pictures are mostly of deconstruction site, places where items are cut apart or torn up. These ar eplaces few people would ever visit. The prints are clear and the colours accurate. His ability with depth of field is very good.

[Ron Bose]

Tim: you're right, it was 2003, sorry. Glad you saw some of the prints though ...

Ed: Your observations have merit. I was very impressed by his control of D.O.F. especially with (my estimated) shutter speed (from the shimmer of moving objects). His huge detailed prints are a site to behold. But, I stood in front of each image and tried to figure out why it impressed me. The the richness of the detail, the rendition of colour, the control of DOF, and yes, its sheer size.

But when I did an 'analysis' of the composition, it didn't follow too many traditional themes (the S-curve, rule of thirds, leading lines). But it did seem to draw me into the image, hence that enveloping feel when you stand in front of the print.

I wonder, if Ed used some of the more traditional compositional methods, would they have been too strong on a 40"x50" print ?? Would the overall print have been balanced ? If these were 8"x10" prints then I think they would have been 'weaker' due to the 'lite' composition.

However, that all said, it's refreshing to see huge detailed prints. I'm sick of seeing single contact prints of 35mm or 6x6 negs on exhibition walls. Ed is a master of his technique and has produced a body of work in three themes which work very well IMHO. He should be applauded for that.

And, if his work motivates LF photography (it's got me pumped), then that's better for all of us ....

[Capocheny]

I'm in the same camp as Ed is on this subject. A friend of mine bought one of his "smaller" prints for an arm and leg... $50,000 strikes a cord. For the same dollar... hmmm, I don't know that I would have purchased it. However, my friend is a geologist and the image was something that my friend wanted in his boardroom. So, in my friends case, the subject matter and the final image struck an emotional cord in him. This is what photography is all about.

For me? There wasn't an emotional connection to the subject matter although I recognize that Burtynsky obviouly is a master at using the large format camera.

I'd take an Ansel Adams any day of the week, or a Weston, or a Strand... but I know there are some folks out there who would disagree with my taste in photographs too.

Gotta like what you like...

Cheers

[tim atherton]

"The composition is unremarkable. His photos are really nothing more than snapshots made very large."

I'm not sure I'd entirely agree based on the prints I did see + the book (mind you if the latter comment was about my own work I'd actually take it as a compliment...)

Ed, I'm interested in what sort of composition would you consider "remarkable" - whose photographs.

"But when I did an 'analysis' of the composition, it didn't follow too many traditional themes (the S-curve, rule of thirds, leading lines). But it did seem to draw me into the image, hence that enveloping feel when you stand in front of the print."

In part I think that's my experience. One of the problems I find with a lot of photography is the use of those kinds of compositional themes as you put it Ron. For me they are often a sort of straightjacket that comes from the dominance of perpectivism in photography - a sort of continued application of Renaissance theories of perspective to photography.

[Ed Burlew]

I am not talking about formulae. That is a long gomne idea. I am takling about a special way of seeing, seeing a moment, seeing an emotion, having a special perspective and conveying an idea. To just take a photo and then enlarge it is interesting in itself but it is not art, Struth, Wall, Adams, Sherman, Meyerwits (sp), have a moment they captured adn iit is shared with us all, Elliot Porter has those mmnets too. I guess that I am just underwelmed by industrial outflow, houses being wrecked, recycling dumps, empty quarries and backyards. Clyse Butcher knows composition. Meunch knows composition. Struth's perspective observational of people in places and there is a context for that. Wall creates drama. I guess that's what I don't get about Ed B.. The reviews call his work "high focus", Tell me, what is that? Is the detail the message? (Marshal McLuhan rewritten)

[Ron Bose]

I certainly don't practice the rules of composition, I'm too stubborn and the rules are too restrictive.

I just wish that I'd have the opportunity to see some the original works of the greats that you mentioned Ed ....

To me anyways, Burtynsky's shots are powerful. I enjoyed them much more than the Bill Brandt nudes (platinum prints) that I saw in London ....

[Ed Burlew]

The size alone is their power. HAd the Bill Brandt been 50x60 their power would be awesome.

[Bill_1856]

"If you can't make it good -- make it BIG." (ART 101)

[Capocheny]

... LOL :>)

Check out the discussion underway on this site regarding, "What's the biggest print..."

Falls hand in hand with this discussion... to some degree.

Cheers

[Frank Petronio]

Unbeknownst to either of us, he photographed the exact same location as I did (Rock of Ages Quarry in Barre, Vt.), and made an almost identical print (after I did... but I am he was unaware). His print now is on display at the Eastman House, and he sells his work for $50,000 a pop. I give my work to friends and haven't been in a show for at least ten years.

An excellent demonstration of "if you can't make it good, make it big" and the importance of self-promotion.

[Paul Kierstead]

Well, obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion. I attended the show at the National Art Gallery and the quarry pictures and refinery pictures moved *me*. Perhaps they do nothing for you. OTOH, ship-breaking did nothing for me, and -- for the most part -- I didn't care for the recycling theme.

I would agree that some of the power is in the size and color, but certainly not all of it. I found the composition on the quarry pictures to be intriguing, interesting and fascinating. It capture my attention for far more time then the huge majority if work I have seen, including other mediums. I wouldn't ask for more.

I guess every "well-known" photographer has his/her fans and detractors, but personally from an aesthetic point of view, I would rather a Burtynsky on my wall then an Adams, although to be fair I am so burnt-out on Yosemite and Arizona that I can barely bear to see another one.

[Frank Petronio]

I like my Quarry pictures very much. So do other people who see them. My only problem with Burtynsky is not at all personal, but more to do with the fact that some photographers like him, Wall, Gursky, etc. command such high prices and acclaim for work that is not any different from hundreds of MFA thesis shows. They are simply promoted better and the make really BIG prints. That's nothing new in the art world, but when I read some critic fawning over it all I do get a bit jaded. Then again, I feel lazy and jealous too!

[Ron Bose]

Frank,

It's time to show !!

I really like Burtynsky's work. I don't compare it to other LF shooters because I find that a hard thing to do. The most important thing is that he's making images with an 8x10 camera and that's unique in today's digital world.

The no comprimise approach to quality in photographic art is something that should be encouraged. I'm disappointed that mediocrity is what the public is being acclimatized too, because it's better for the bottom line of some company, be it an 'ad' campaign or the quality of the images we see in magazines. If I we were lucky enough to see more exhibits of LF shooters then I'd have the luxury to make comparisons and say whose work I like 'close up' and in the flesh.

Burtynsky's work moved me because of the sheer scale of things presented on large scale prints. The massive ships being dismantled by men wearing sandles and carrying blowtorches, huge quarries being harvested with steam cutters.

Looking forward to 'Contact' in a few weeks time ...

[Sandy Sorlien]

Wow, this discussion is bizarre. Burtynsky's work is only impressive because it's big and well-printed? What are you guys looking at? It's specatacular work at any size. I have mostly seen it in books (saw a few big prints at AIPAD several years ago) and it is amazing at 8x10 inches. The use of bright color as accent on a more muted landscape is masterful; likewise his handling of different scales of detail and background. The subject matter is sometimes ugly, often horrifying, but the form is beautiful. This is how some of the finest documentary artists get us to look at the conditions they photograph. If the image is not compelling no one is going to want to engage that subject matter. This strategy is used by Gowin, Misrach, Salgado, many others. I suggest taking a more leisurely look at his books and then decide based on form, content, and photographic vision; not just print quality. Branch out from your Arizona Highways aesthetic....

Cheers, Sandy

[Sheldon Grimson]

Just to say that I went to the AGO exhibit and felt it was important enough an emotional experience to drag my 16 year old and my 85 year old mother to the next and last day it was on. It worked on many levels for me. The impact of the camera image of the real world was almost surreal but without gimmicks. The subjects were both of the beauty of the world and the result of our imprint on it. There was a lesson here for my son on the contradiction between our use and abuse of the world and the amazing sight of it all. The size did make a huge difference and thankfully he utilized the potential of the medium to produce these images. As for the member who bemoans his difficulty in getting his work out there I can only say that you should not give up. I was in that boat, as a young eager photographer who decided to give up his passion and take the safe way out and took up another career. But after about 35 years I decided to dig out the old negs and teach myself how to print. Not easy if you have a good idea of how a good print or great print looks...Lots of sturm and drang. But in the end, I resurrected a body of work that I did in 1970 of a group of mostly unknown Canadian poets such as a woman named Margaret Atwood and a young man named Michael Ondaatje etc. etc. After a year in the darkroom, I'm having my first show at the Photo Contact in May. My lesson is that you should never give up. Its OK to take a break but keep seeing things that way photographers do. And never throw away a neg. Let the idiot digital guys delete to their hearts' content. If nothing but time rolls on your pictures will gain in value as documents, if nothing else. Then I'm sure that you too will find a sympathetic gallery owner that sees that value. One more comment : It is after all these years that I am printing up the shots of all my old aquaintances and dropping them off to renew old friendships and shock their children! The joy of this is worth all the downsides. Keep shooting!