"The Robert Adams exhibition left me mystified as to his popularity. Technically the images were poor and the subject matter repetitious."
I must say I remain confused by these comments. I admit to not having seen the particular exhibit in question, but any Adams prints I have seen in the past have generally been very good quality. Are you saying the Getty has a batch of bad prints?
Or are you saying you have a personal dislike for his technique, style and subject matter?
What set of standards are you using to define "technically poor" images?
Bookmarks