Reactions to the Paul Strand Exhibit at the Philadelphia Museum of Art

[Peter Collins]

Hello folks!

Today I saw the exhibit, as did many others on this pleasant Sunday. This meant moving carefully around other folks, and waiting to get close enough to see the images. Slow going.

The scope of the show is more than I can assimilate in even several days. Over 250 prints! And I could stay only a couple of hours.... I loved the extent of the show! I caught his sense of composition, of his abstractions, and of his humanity that I had never experienced prior today.

I was very disappointed in the low light levels. Even after 20 minutes with these 69-year-old eyes, the white shirts were still too dark. Shadows were empty. The curators save ("preserve/conserve") the 'materials,' but with lights so low that the prints do not work as well as they can. The low light levels are a disservice to the artist and his art.

In quite a few instances the prints in the Aperture Masters of Photography ($18) and the Exhibition Catalog ($55) seemed better than the prints in the Exhibition. Part of this appreciation was due, I bet, to the much higher light levels in the gift shop. Also, for me, part of the effect was the cooler reproductions of some of his earlier work in palladium.

This show closes January 4. This is the only showing in the continent--actually, the hemisphere. In spite of my silent argument about light with the curators, I enjoyed the show. I thought the Aperture book (pictures, fewer words) was a better buy than the Catalog. My bias is that I think the Catalog should be more pictures and less commentary.

[jhogan]

A very general note regarding illumination of delicate/sensitive items on museum display: Lighting levels for objects are often specified by the lender in the loan agreement, so a dim atmosphere may not necessarily be the choice of the museum staff... total accumulated exposure to lighting over a period of years is the concern, particularly to owners of valuable works.

Extremely sensitive items such as salt prints, works made with vegetable dyes, etc. may even be covered by a "curtain" which must be lifted in order to view the work at all.

[mdm]

I have the catalogue and think it's fantastic. It seems to reproduce prints rather thn negative scans and I love seeing the progression of his printing style. It lives on my dining room table and I look at it daily.

[bigdog]

... Lighting levels for objects are often specified by the lender in the loan agreement, so a dim atmosphere may not necessarily be the choice of the museum staff...

There was an Ansel Adams exhibit here in North Texas earlier this year that suffered from exactly that. The owners of the prints had specified such a low light level that it was almost impossible to view the work. I'm all for conservation, but unless one had never seen Adams at all, this exhibition was hardly worth visiting.

[Kirk Gittings]

At the Santa Fe University of Art and Design we have a world class collection of photography including some 25 classic Strands. Last year we hung an exhibit of them and lit them to be seen. It was a joy to behold.

[jonbrisbincreative]

I was fortunate enough to cajole the family into visiting the St. Louis (Missouri) Art Museum when a visiting Strand exhibit was there. One thing that struck me was that Strand chose to print with the highest possible fidelity, which to him meant 8x10 contact prints. He also seemed to prefer (like myself) dimness and moodiness (which I can see would cause problems with low levels of ambient light), even with somewhat lively and well-lit situations. His use of shadow is really something unique IMO. His portraits are very interesting as well but I'm more drawn to his abstractions that include people or place.

He's a photographer I include in my aesthetic lineage. Along with Andrew Wyeth, I consider them my artistic ancestors.

[Drew Wiley]

I'm skeptical just how sensitive silver prints are to moderate levels of tungsten light. Atmospheric pollution is more their adversary. And high UV halogens would
be bad for the paper itself. But these low illumination exhibition parameters are probably dictated by either the insurance company or some kind of blanket
loan clause. Sure spoils the viewing experience, however.

[jonbrisbincreative]

YouTube video on Strand from @theartofphotography:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv03l46FSvU

[Bill_1856]

I was fortunate enough to cajole the family into visiting the St. Louis (Missouri) Art Museum when a visiting Strand exhibit was there. One thing that struck me was that Strand chose to print with the highest possible fidelity, which to him meant 8x10 contact prints. He also seemed to prefer (like myself) dimness and moodiness (which I can see would cause problems with low levels of ambient light), even with somewhat lively and well-lit situations. His use of shadow is really something unique IMO. His portraits are very interesting as well but I'm more drawn to his abstractions that include people or place.

He's a photographer I include in my aesthetic lineage. Along with Andrew Wyeth, I consider them my artistic ancestors.

I recently saw a review of his work which was described as "Somber." I thought that was a perfect description.

[Toyon]

The smart curators use photocells to raise light levels when people are viewing prints, then lower them when nobody is in front of the print. The cumulative effect is the same, but much friendlier to viewers.