VoxPhotographs Weblog

Editioning digital photographs – does it make sense anymore?

Posted in HELP!! Doing it right... on November 1, 2011 by voxphotographs

Bug Light/Snowstorm©Michael Heiko. Open edition, any size, any presentation.

——————————————————-

Ask this question of 20 fine art photographers and yes, you will get 20 very different answers. These days it seems every artist who sells digital prints of their work is re-thinking the issues: whether to edition, how to edition, when to edition and why edition. If you are selling custom sizes beyond your set sizes, are your editioned sizes then eroded and diluted in value? If you are selling images on paper, on metal and face-mounted, do they all count in the edition? Spend some time searching for answers online and it just gets murkier.

Here are some responses I received from artists to whom I posed a few of these questions:

Do you think editioning a fine art photograph is important?

• Yes, I consider it a necessity.

• I edition, but to date no client has discussed it.

• I’m under the impression that “successful” artists have to edition to maintain the value of their work.

• Not interested in editioning so my options can stay open.

• I think limited editions are more important to the dealer than the artist.

• What dollar value can you put on an open edition print? It becomes a poster at that point.

• I have always been told it is critical to the success of my work.

• It’s a ridiculous way to pump up the perceived value of a photograph.

Do you sell custom sizes of your digital images? If so, how does that affect the edition of that image?

• Custom sizes are not counted in editions.

• This is a sticky issue.

• A custom size is one of a kind.

• I don’t custom size, but control the print sizes available.

• A custom size is a new edition.

• It would only be fair to count custom sizes in the edition total.

• It counts toward the edition no matter what.

—————————————————————————

I have to be honest – I don’t think I would lose a sale to a collector here in Maine if a photograph was not editioned, but dealers in Boston, NYC and beyond state unequivocally they couldn’t sell a fine art photograph that isn’t editioned. I get that. I’ve made the point when a short edition is running out to encourage an immediate decision from a collector. The many sales I make through design professionals to their corporate clients are never discussed in the light of editions – it’s all about the image and custom-sizing it for the client’s specific space needs.

One thing I do know: if you are editioning, you MUST make those editions very small. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Anything over 15 is unacceptable to me, any size. The editions should be 10 and fewer, and preferably 3-6. If an image sells out, good for you! It’s an all too rare situation for most fine art photographers, frankly, especially based in Maine. You can use this “sold out” history to sell more work (“Ten of my images sold out last year.”) and you are shooting constantly, right? So putting a whopping edition on an image because you fear it will sell out and may still be sought after, is nothing more than insecure and unprofessional.

Pastel Series#5©Jane Yudelman. Total image edition:10, any size from 16×16 to 40×40.

Jane Yudelman, a new artist whose work I’m taking on, surprised me with an approach totally new to me: she’s going to edition the image, period. Not editions for specific sizes of an image, but the image itself. I can’t believe how simple this approach is and how much sense it makes in this day and age of easily custom-sized digital work presented on a number of substrates.

I asked Brian Clamp of ClampArt, NYC, what I was missing with this concept and he shocked me when he said it is, in his mind, the best approach and he’s all for it for most artists. Once your client gets the point that there will be X number of prints of this image, any size, the value of that image immediately rises. Dealers love it because editioning an image generally results in fewer images being allowed in the marketplace – which drives up prices from the beginning.

In a recent conversation with George Kinghorn, Director/Curator of the University of Maine Museum of Art in Bangor, I asked him what he thought of editioning the image and whether an uneditioned image would ever find its way into the Museum collection. Although he, too, had never heard of it before, he wholeheartedly embraced the concept of editioning an image rather than sizes of an image for most artists. He would consider including an open edition photographic print in the Museum collection, but would expect the price to reflect that. And he clearly feels that artists who restrict the image size and will not custom size it must be respected for their artistic license to do so.

Passenger Pigeon-#1232 1997- Gelatin silver print with dye transfer
Framed size: 47 in diameter / 119.4 cm
Unique work©Todd Watts. All Rights Reserved

Case in point: Todd Watts corresponded with me on the topic of editioning his work. He wrote: “For me the scale of an image is an integral part of the artwork so I make each image in only one size and I number them according to editioning conventions. When it comes to presentation / framing I believe that it is also part of the artwork. I personally use frames and design them for each piece. If the piece is sold without a frame, which I try to avoid, I include instructions on how to build the frame designed for the piece. I put each new piece on my website with all of the information that a collector, dealer or curator would want. I also include information for conservators. That way everything about each work is public record, is helpful, and avoids confusion…” He concludes: “I think the total creative act must remain with the artist. The collector can choose to purchase a work or not, but giving any aesthetic control to the purchaser clearly defeats the purpose of artists.”

If you spend time on Todd’s website, you’ll appreciate where he’s coming from and I agree with him wholeheartedly on his approach to his own work. However, many artists’ work lends itself to varying sizes and presentations and I disagree that every artist needs to control both issues of size and presentation. My experience proves the opposite for many artists. As well, a compromise is possible: edition the image, but limit it to the sizes you feel best represent it if you feel strongly about it.

Here’s my dream world and I’m going to encourage most of my photographers to consider it: EDITION THE IMAGE and keep that edition to 10 or fewer. I prefer 3-6. If limiting the sale of an image to 6-10 total makes you quake in your boots, you need to grab that camera and get to work, frankly. You will always be making new photographs, so what’s the harm if you sell six and that image is no longer available? Your work is “in demand”! Run with it!

But editioning the image really is a clean solution going forward. I can think of no down-side and although it’s not a one-size-fits-all approach, it fits most of us.

So…talk to me. Would you edition an image rather than sizes of an image? Would you allow the collector to decide whether he/she wants it presented on paper, on metal or face-mounted?

1 Comment »

World-class in Belfast – Koichiro Kurita

Posted in EXHIBITS/SHOWS, Maine on October 13, 2011 by voxphotographs

There’s really no excuse for missing this exhibition of Koichiro Kurita’s historic processes prints at Waterfall Arts in Belfast. It’s on view for weeks yet – through November 23.

But what IS urgent are the artist’s talk and workshops offered in conjunction with the exhibit: Kurita will speak about his project and work on October 20 at 7 p.m.in Belfast and offer workshops on making platinum/palladium prints at the Montville facility on October 21 for beginners, and on Oct. 22/23 for a Master Class.

The backstory is that Kurita became inspired by Thoreau’s “Walden” to change his life from that of a commercial photographer to a nature photographer. His project, “Beyond Spheres” will take years to complete as he follows in Thoreau’s footsteps making calotypes, or talbotypes, a process first used by William Fox Talbot in 1841.

The prints on view at Waterfall Arts are, quite simply, exquisite. If you don’t feel something pretty large while viewing them, you need a day off. Making platinum/palladium prints is all about tonal control as the process allows a very narrow tonal range, and Kurita, whose work is in museum collections worldwide, is a master.

Although much of the “wow” in the press about his work is tied to his multi-image large works, the smaller works affected me the most. They seemed more complete in themselves as a creation - the composition is tighter and holds me in closer to the image. And that sense is borne out by the stunning perfection of the little 7.5″x4.5″ (approx) matted and signed images next to the desk you can purchase for $350(sample below). They took my breath away, they were so perfectly composed and executed. If you don’t see them out, ask for them.

The premium image in the exhibit for me is “Species & Individual, Montville, ME 2011“. It is four vertical prints stitched together to make a final image that is 10″x32″ and it is a miracle of tonality. I still can’t believe it. I can’t find it online and am not sure I would reproduce it here if I could – what’s the point when any reproduction of this finely tuned piece of heaven would be a total failure?

The “Concord River, Concord, MA, 1992” is in the realm of perfect for its use of the medium and composition, as well as a much more complex content than at first meets the eye. If you study it, you will be rewarded. And its perfect partner is “Ichi, Catskill, NY, 2005” for the reflection of a tree trunk that provides the opportunity to see into the bottom of a stream. On the same wall is “Fall, Mystic, CT, 1991” that held me for a long time – so delicate, so powerful, so totally perfect in execution.

If you think it’s hard to come up with something new for nature photography, you will find it here because of the results of Kurita’s obvious total attention to his subject matter and process. A marriage made in heaven – and a long-term marriage at that: some of my favorite images in the exhibit were some of his earliest: “Winter Pond, Baxter, ME, 1990“, “Feather, Baxter National Park, ME 1990” and “Mt. Katahdin, Baxter National Park, ME 1990“.

There’s a sheet of info.at the front desk about Koichiro Kurita’s “Beyond Spheres” project and more online.

Yes, I have a larger vocabulary than using “perfect” this many times in a review would suggest. But there’s no higher realm than “perfect” and Kurita’s prints deserve nothing less.

3 Comments »

Sara Gray at Gleason/Portland: a foot in both camps

Posted in EXHIBITS/SHOWS, Maine on October 11, 2011 by voxphotographs

I wrote about Sara Gray’s photographs in December of 2009 when I saw two images that were included in the terrific photography show at George Marshall Store Gallery, curated by Mary Harding. At the time here’s what I wrote:

“I was delighted with Sara Gray‘s two square format images – have seen much of her commercial work in Down East magazine and elsewhere, and figured her work leaping across commercial photography lines in such a show as this could possibly be dismissed. Uh-uh. Take the time to read them closely – they’re gorgeous and well-deserving of the inclusion. I’m just surprised I haven’t seen more of her fine art photography work around.“

—-

When I corresponded with her after the 12/09 show I asked whether she had more work at this level, but she lamented most of her work was editorial in nature. So, I was surprised to see the full page ad for an upcoming show of her work at Gleason Fine Art. I went online, but found no fine art body of work on Sara’s own website yet.

At Gleason last week, I was pleased to see four or five images that did transcend the editorial/scenic genre. When I asked Andrew Gleason if the gallery is beginning to represent photographers he told me Sara is a close friend of the Gleason family and they wanted to honor her in this way.

Perhaps if Sara’s Portland show of work at Gleason had been shaped and curated over a year’s time, it would have more heft, but that said, it’s worth a stop in to appreciate her eye for color AND the fact that the prints are gorgeously printed – by Photo Craft Imaging in Colorado, a big factor in the artist’s favor in my book. Edition size hurts the credibility of the show: If you’re going to pin an edition of 50 on an image celebrating the beauty of Maine, it belongs in a tourist gallery, not a highly regarded fine art gallery like Gleason Fine Art. An edition of 3-10 per image/size denotes the image is more precious. Not to mention it implies the artist is always shooting great images, and knows the next ones will be just as great.

By far the premier image in the show is the one in the ad and above: “Sand Patterns at Low Tide, Old Orchard Beach, ME“. If it had been presented at a good 24″x24″ or larger instead of the 17″x17″ on view, it would pull people in off the street like a magnet. I looked at this image in the ad for a very long time appreciating the strength and abstract nature of the “aerial view”. Surprise, Heather. There’s the issue of the horizon line. It’s not an aerial view at all – and simply stated, it’s the best beach/sand/water/sky image I’ve seen in a long time.

Only one image in the show is larger than 17″x17″ and that really is a shame. This 20″x20″ “Tree in Snowy Field at Dawn” is breathtaking, and although it’s been done before, when I looked at it, I felt I was seeing such a take for the first time. I couldn’t get a good reproduction of it, but wanted to include this jpg for reference regardless.

Shows like this take a shocking investment in printing and framing, so I understand the smaller size range. I would suggest next time fewer images be presented and larger so the viewer can appreciate better the fine details of the work.

The image at the top of this posting, “Dock at Sunrise“, didn’t make it on to my “fine art photographs” list at first because the content teeters on the scenic genre, but I kept coming back to it. It is a photograph so wondrously created I had to step aside and let it make the leap. It did, and quite without my help, thank you very much.

I had no such hesitation with the elegaic “Dawn, Mt. Katahdin” below.

There’s nothing wrong with scenic photography and if you live in Maine why the heck wouldn’t you make beautiful photographs of beautiful places? The hard part is to take photographs no one else has, would or can. That’s the unique vision that is fine art photography and I wish Sara would make the leap more often for us.

Sara Gray: Transitions is on view at Gleason Fine Art/Portland through November 30, 2011.

1 Comment »

Anticipating the photograph: Madeleine de Sinéty at the PMA

Posted in EXHIBITS/SHOWS, Maine on October 6, 2011 by voxphotographs

There are three good reasons to take a walk down Congress St. in Portland this fall.

The first is to observe the funkiest cultural soup around. It never fails to entertain hugely.

Second, the Portland Museum of Art’s newest CIRCA exhibit honors the work of Madeleine de Sinéty and thank goodness for that, because it is a forty year span of deeply moving images. I expected to observe and make notes, not to be deeply moved and loathe to leave the exhibit’s presence.

Madeleine de Sinéty – The Widow, 1991. Courtesy of the Artist.

Madeleine de Sinéty: Photographs is a soul-feeder. And the work exemplifies one of my favorite quotes. Helen Levitt responded to the comment about her work that “Anyone could take these photographs.” by saying “It’s not about taking the photograph. It’s about anticipating the photograph.” And for those artists recording a community, as de Sinéty did in Poilley, France, that’s a vital key to success. Another is to love and respect the people whose lives you are recording. And with these two keys in her hand, de Sinéty’s works open the door to a brilliance all their own. I just kept asking myself – “How did she do this?”

Madeleine de Sinéty – Christine and Collette – First Communion,1947. Courtesy of the Artist.

While the works made in Poilley, France in the early 70′s are the clear winners for me, there’s hardly a photograph in this exhibit that didn’t make me stop and study it. Not only does she get the most amazing content, De Sinéty brings it to life using sharply contrasting tones, and the photographs, mostly black and white, are visually arresting as a result. Her eye for taking the un-obvious and making it a major player is beyond brilliant.

Madeleine de Sinéty – Mere Fine and Her Cow, 1992.Courtesy of the Artist.

While some of the photographs are crisp and a bit jarring because of it, most of them feature a graininess that works perfectly for such earthy images.

Although the reproductions in the exhibit catalog (a steal at $14.95) are superb, Thomas Palmer’s black and white digital prints are a marvel – for those of you who still don’t get that digital printing is an art form, not a button to press, go and stick your face up as close to these prints as you can get so you can see exactly what an “art form” is. There are seven color prints, made elsewhere and I’ve forgotten where, which are a joy in the quality dept. and are reproduced really well in the catalog as well.

Madeleine de Sinéty – Marie Christine and Her Hen, 1975 .Courtesy of the Artist.

Did people really live like this in rural France in the 1970′s?? I never would have believed it and kept referring to the date on the tag to make sure these weren’t from the previous century – maybe some photographs from Peter Henry Emerson’s 1886 publication “Life and Landscape on the Norfolk Broads” got mixed in when the exhibit was being installed? Check out “Maria Leading Coquette, 1974″ or “Lunch Under the Apple Trees, 1974″ or the color image “Firewood Cart, 1974″ and you will shake your head in disbelief. Although de Sinéty returned in 1992 to document the changes, looking at “Mere Fine and Her Cow” above, you’ll think those intervening 20 years didn’t bring much change at all.

The pictures from her trip to Poilley in 2001 document most definitely a community that at last has its toe in the 21st century, but the ride via Madeline de Sinéty’s photographs to get there is one worth taking.

The exhibit includes photographs from trips to Uganda between 1998-2000 and a decade (1985 – 1995) in Maine as well. They all shine with de Sinéty’s signature success at pulling you right into the heart of the moment each photograph was taken, but perhaps the artist’s own heritage as a Frenchwoman lent an extra layer of insight while photographing her own countrymen, as the photographs of Poilly are almost too real to share with the rest of us.

Well, once you’ve dragged yourself away, not forgetting to view the photographs installed at the first floor elevator banks as I did (I hate that space, but I’ll be back and catch them the next time), move on to Reason Number Three. Otto Pizza, right around the corner. Savor the wonderful exhibit you’ve just immersed yourself in while eating the best pizza in the state while watching that crazy Congress St. sea of humanity. One, two, three.

Madeleine de Sinéty – Boy With Dog, 2001. Courtesy of the artist.

1 Comment »

Bravo at Bates…

Posted in EXHIBITS/SHOWS, Maine on September 29, 2011 by voxphotographs

I’ve never been able to get excited about Manuel Alvarez Bravo. It’s a combination of things – Central/South American culture doesn’t interest me the way other cultures do. Can’t help it. Besides a lack of interest in what Bravo often found important, it may also be the era – time and time again I fail to be moved by much of the black and white work of our photographic pioneers of the 30′s – those simple images that they introduced to the viewer for the first time, and that, by now, every freshman photography student thinks they invented. Thirdly, I’m not convinced of Bravo’s skill, frankly.

BUT. Like I always say to the friend who often tags along to see photograph exhibits and shows with me: it’s not ABOUT whether or not you like it. It’s about this artist’s place in the history of photography. So, far from a sense of duty propelling me Lewiston-ward, it’s a matter of wanting to understand better the entire 180+- year spectrum of fine art photographs. And that’s reason enough every time.

Manuel Alvarez Bravo: Fotografias de Mexico (1933-1976) is on view at Bates College Museum of Art in Lewiston through October 29 and is comprised of 15 vintage prints. Some of these images definitely awakened a sense of delight in me, in particular “Hands in the 210 of Fernandez Leal, 1933″ below and the other two images I’ve included in this posting.

This exhibit has compelled me to spend time online reviewing Bravo’s oeuvre and my appreciation has grown, as it should.

Bates Museum College of Art is the current venue in a long list of Maine art museums that has gifted us with terrific photographic exhibits in the last couple of years. I know we’re not New York City all too well, but I’m amazed and grateful by The Portland Museum of Art, Colby College Museum of Art, University of Maine Museum of Art/Bangor, Bates College Museum of Art and Bowdoin College Museum of Art’s quality, high level exhibitions: these professionals take fine art photography seriously and have given us some memorable and important exhibits to learn from.

That’s certainly true about this Bravo exhibit – I’ve made the trip and am very glad I did. While Bravo may never become one of my favorite master photographers, I got what I came for – a larger understanding of his place in the big picture. But I also got something else – after a prolonged view of more of his work online, motivated by this exhibit, I am convinced that his works have more originality than I had previously believed.

Print quality – vital now more than ever

Posted in HELP!! Doing it right... on August 21, 2011 by voxphotographs

UMMA’s Photo National 2011 panel discussion on 8/11 resulted in valuable words of wisdom from Susan Danly, Curator of Photography at Portland Museum of Art, Brian Clamp, Director of CLAMPART, NYC and one of the exhibit’s photographers Lisa Kessler.

One of my biggest concerns is universal standards for digital print quality and I raised the question to the panel to inquire how they are dealing with that issue, especially when so many exhibitions are now juried via electronic images only. (Afterwards, Brian Clamp expressed to me that it’s not just digital print quality that’s an ongoing issue. As a darkroom photographer himself, he often notices some questionable quality with today’s silver gelatin prints as well.)

When I meet with photographers, they often tell me, when discussing size decisions for their work, that they can only exhibit an 11×14 print because their printer handles up to 11×17 paper. It renders me speechless that crucial artistic decisions come down to such ridiculous practicalities. By all means, print your working prints. But when it comes to exhibition prints – unless you are a master printer at the level where you are printing for others because you are so skilled – hire a professional.

Many photography shows I view have seriously inadequate digital prints for sale and it brings us all down. If you think digital printing is as easy as knowing where the PRINT button is, you don’t deserve to have work on the walls for a public audience. It is a very complex skill, period. Any abnormalities that take away from image quality, whether excessive noise, evidence of over-enlargement or over-sharpening, or anything else that looks “digital”, are not acceptable for your exhibition prints.

Many photographers in Maine work with Jim Nickelson at Nickelson Editions. Jim is a highly experienced photographer and master colorist, and many of his landscape photographs are at the far end of daring when it comes to handling low and difficult light situations. (Of course, you can find his work at VoxPhotographs). His engineering background makes him a natural for understanding the complexities of printers, matching files to specific printers, adjusting files for printing, etc…He says: “A very good digital print will show no outward signs of digital processing. This means that:

• an appropriate level of sharpening has been applied

• the file has been carefully enlarged to the print size and has not been over-enlarged in such a way that is obvious to a viewer, and

• digital noise or other characteristics are reduced to levels acceptable for the size of the print and the subject matter.

An excellent or superb digital print will build off this base to subtly enhance the image, whether it be by selective sharpening, dodging and burning, color manipulation, contrast adjustment, or by using any of a wide variety of available techniques.”

I’m going to start including printing information on exhibit piece labels, as well as promote the idea to others. The labels will read either “Printed by: Artist” or “Printed by: Jim Nickelson Editions“, etc… If the artist is a superb printer, it will be a feather in his or her cap to be known as such. If the printer is someone else, they should be acknowledged too. And most important will be the fact that this now “unimportant” part of making digital photographic prints on paper will be brought into the forefront of ascertaining the worthiness of each print on the wall in every photographs exhibit going forward.

3 Comments »

Photographic treasures at Maine Historical Society

Posted in EXHIBITS/SHOWS, Maine on August 12, 2011 by voxphotographs

I’m a photo history nut and love vintage photographs (I own the 400 original vintage images featured on VoxPhotographs), so was rather thrilled to find a kind of buried treasure today at the Maine Historical Society exhibit “Dressing Up, Standing Out, Fitting In: Adornment & Identity in Maine” in Portland.

One of the first things you see in the exhibit is a pair of exquisite miniature portraits by Maine’s own Chansonetta Stanley Emmons of Kingfield, but they aren’t photographs. I didn’t realize she was also a painter, so I learned something important about this under-appreciated photographer when I read she had made these watercolor on ivory portraits of her and her husband in 1887.

I was delighted by the extensive and creative use of photographs by the A.H. Benoit Co. on Middle St. in Portland (above). The two huge reproductions of photographs (1930 and 1950) of their store windows are fabulous, and I had a good laugh at the 1960 photo of 18 of their employees hanging out in the street with company wares (hats) on their heads.

I’ve seen “gem” tintypes (ca.1880) before but never a chain of six of them encased in a tiny book-like locket that extends out when opened. And then there’s the terrific colored ambrotype (ca.1860) of a Skowhegan firefighter that any collector would kill to own.

On the right wall as you enter the exhibit are two terrific examples of painted portraits – but these are really special: taken in 1901 by Charles E. Brown of Eastport, they are portraits of two Passamaquoddy Indians, Mary Mitchell Selmore and Chief Sopiel Selmore in all their regalia.

There are many more ambrotypes to enjoy, including one of a Mason all tricked out, and daguerreotypes portraits that show off the highfalutin collars everyone really got into in the 1850′s. Most of us today wouldn’t survive a week in the uncomfortable, tortuous clothes and styles this exhibit has on display.

I loved seeing the highback tortoiseshell combs – I couldn’t believe how intricately they were carved. The Woodford Comb Factory made them at Woodford Corners between 1820 and 1849. Not photographs I know, but this is not a photographs exhibit so we get to expand our horizons and and enjoy seeing the hats, dresses, combs, collars and more that Mainers strutted their stuff in in the last 200+- years. I tend to get “Antiques Roadshow” syndrome when I see this amazing stuff, my first attack practically overwhelming me several years ago on my inaugural tour through the Henry Wadsworth Longfellow home next door. All I can see is dollar signs in every corner!!

There’s a terrific large-scale reproduction of the bustling sidewalk in front of Storey’s millinery shop (1914) at Congress and Oak, and an adorable 1897 studio portrait of little Arthur Stanwood of Brunswick dressed to the nines.

Well… please: lock me into the photo archives at MHS for a year! My definition of heaven.

No excuses on this one, folks: this exhibit runs through May 27, 2012.

1 Comment »

Waterville Part II: Colby College Museum of Art

Posted in EXHIBITS/SHOWS, Maine on August 4, 2011 by voxphotographs

Unless death intervenes, there is absolutely no excuse for any fine art photographer in Maine to miss the current photography exhibits at Colby College Museum of Art in Waterville: American Modern: Abbott, Evans, Bourke-White, and Andrew Moore: Detroit Disassembled. As well, I wrote in the spring about an ongoing exhibit: “Celebrating a Gift: Photography from the Collection of Norma B. Marin.” All three exhibits run through October 2.

I need to start here with the Andrew Moore exhibit so he doesn’t get overshadowed by “American Modern”, but I suggest you see it last so it is uppermost in your memory.

Frankly, I am so tired of abandoned building shots I could scream, so imagine my astonishment when I was utterly transfixed by the seven images on view. As I review the full project on Moore’s website, I remember having seen images like “Walden Street, Detroit” – the abandoned house completely overgrown by vines – before.

The power of these images can not be overstated: the security guard told me he’s seen people from Detroit moved to tears when viewing them. I found them shocking, and still do even as I review them in my mind and on Moore’s site. Detroit has wasted away fully one-third of its previous 138 square mile span, and the artist says it best when he states Detroit has been “thrown spectacularly into reverse.” Moore has an extraordinary eye for substance and color, as well as presentation. The images are scaled big enough to practically walk into at approximately 44×35 and are perfectly and appropriately presented. These two represented electronically here can not begin to do them justice.

When you read the history of Detroit’s once elegant, thriving train station (“Waiting Room”, above), and see Moore’s recent (all works were shot in 2008 and 2009) photograph depicting its total abandonment and demise, open to the elements and ironically destroyed by the city’s own industrial lifeblood as personal vehicles became our transportation mode of choice, it’s like viewing a corpse, plain and simple. Moore has succeeded utterly in communicating the emotion of this city’s terrible strangulation. But in the end, these pictures are not vehicles for social or urban commentary. They are spectacular photographs that are clear in intent and technical prowess without a word of commentary.

—–

The main squeeze through October 2 at the Museum is, of course, “American Modern: Abbott, Evans and Bourke-White” and I had the exhibit practically to myself the entire 1.5 hours I spent viewing it. I was able to really soak it up as a result, and took away a serious photo history lesson. The texts accompanying the show were excellent and clear and avoided telling us how to view the images, which I appreciate always. Instead, I learned about the birth of documentary photography without being numbed senseless by information overload, and now appreciate fully that something we take for granted these days didn’t exist before the 1930′s. Think Life Magazine sporting Margaret Bourke-White’s “Fort Peck Dam, Montana, 1936″ on the cover of its inaugural (only 9″x6″ by the way) 10 cent issue published on November 23, 1936.

By the end of the 1920′s a new movement was emerging and it was called “Precisionism”. It was defined by images including “clean lines and repeating visual elements”. Margaret Bourke-White’s Otis Steel smokestacks says it all:

All three of the artists featured in the Colby exhibit published books of their works – Abbott: “Changing New York” in 1939, Evans: “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men” in 1941, and Bourke-White: “You Have Seen Their Faces” in 1937.

In “Changing New York” Abbott documented the city as it transitioned from its 19th century personality into the bustling 20th. She took “canyon” shots where new towering skyscrapers cast long shadows over their elegant ancestors, as seen in this image:

But the most powerful images in this exhibit for me are Margaret Bourke-White’s and especially the work in her book “You Have Seen Their Faces” for which she collaborated with author Erskine Caldwell. They documented the rural America hardest hit by the depression, and the photographs are haunting, visionary and sensitive – and a reminder that this master did not only record the cold face of industrial America.

Iron Mountain, Tennessee, 1937 © Estate of Margaret Bourke-White/ Licensed by VAGA, New York, NY Margaret Bourke-White Collection, Special Collections Research Center, Syracuse University Library. All Rights Reserved

While Berenice Abbott’s work never moves me for some reason, of course I understand its importance. Walker Evans is one of the most vital influences for contemporary photography and his lunch counter shot is one of my favorites.

Lunchroom Window, New York City, 1929 © Walker Evans Archive, The Metropolitan Museum of Art The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Arnold H. Crane, 1971

But, in this exhibit it is definitely Margaret Bourke-White’s work that resonates with me. She became a renowned photojournalist but never again tackled a social documentary project like “You Have Seen Their Faces.” Evans, too, moved on – returning to NYC from his travels in the south to a major one-person exhibit and to take clandestine photos of his fellow subway riders. Abbott took a complete turn away from social documentary after her book was published and concentrated on scientific photographs.

The last three images in the exhibit are the perfect wrap up to an incredible viewing experience: a close up portrait by each of the three masters including: a beautiful, simple and complete portrait “Untitled”, 1936-7 by Bourke-White, Abbott’s “Portrait of a Miner, Greenville, West Virginia” 1935 which was my favorite of her works exhibited, and of course the iconic “Allie Mae Burroughs”, 1936 portrait by Walker Evans.

While the entire exhibit is a treasure, these three images are the perfect place to leave us with the full impact of the stature of three of America’s most important fine art photographers of the 20th century.

1 Comment »

Waterville, Part I: Common Street Gallery hosts Birtwistle and Sorg

Posted in EXHIBITS/SHOWS, Maine on August 4, 2011 by voxphotographs

The newest kid in town in Waterville is Kate Barnes (no, not that Kate Barnes) and her sparkling Common St. Gallery. On a cool street in a great setting across from a shady park, Common Street Gallery is currently the only fine art gallery in the city. And that’s why Kate opened for business. She had nowhere to go in town to see art.

Kate is a painter herself and studied at Meca and USM, among other venues. Like most Mainers in the arts, she also wears two hats, to pay the bills, but one hat is hidden under the other: she teaches classes for adults and kids in the gallery several times a week.

Her current show features the work of Thomas Birtwistle and Sarah Sorg and that’s why I trotted up there to visit her. (okay, see Waterville Part II: Colby College Museum of Art above!) I’m familiar with the work of both artists: Thomas’ work is represented by VoxPhotographs and I reviewed Sarah’s portfolio earlier this year in Boston at the Griffin Museum’s annual portfolio review. See my earlier post about that. (May)

Unfortunately, there are only 10 days left to see this show as I simply could not get to Waterville before this – and the show opened June 17th.

Most of Sarah Sorg‘s work depicts the changing face of Bangor. She doesn’t editorialize but presents the facts visually. Thankfully, her artist’s statement is short and factual rather than loaded with the irony and politics that would tempt most artists. Sarah’s attitude should be adopted by all fine artists: it’s about the work. Almost all of the images featured in this show are taken at night or very early morning while these properties are “resting” and before the rest of the world starts stirring as well, and they remind me of catching someone unaware: The face and body language are relaxed into the honest, real them when they think they are alone. No pretenses.

Thomas Birtwistle is always full of surprises, and Kate selected mostly lean and straightforward pictures – much like Tom himself. Stairwells, motel interiors and more, and I love this “Blue and Yellow Kitchen”. I came back several times to admire “Bedroom” which I saw for the first time at this show. Tom’s subtle wit is evident in the details of many of his photographs – a reward for the careful viewer.

And in the rear of the gallery are surprise collections of work by Marty Kelly and Katie Brown so you will get some serendipitous viewing when you go! Common Street Gallery is open Thursday and Saturday, 11-4.

Biting the dust – and taking your life’s work with you…

Posted in HELP!! Doing it right..., READ THIS! on July 23, 2011 by voxphotographs

Ansel Adams started it: In 1975 he was one of the founders (along with Wynn Bullock, Harry Callahan, Aaron Siskind and Frederick Sommer) of the Center for Creative Photography - an archival repository that now houses over 60 famous photographers’ life work. It is located in Tucson as part of the University of Arizona system. I read somewhere that Adams realized one day there was nowhere to place his life’s work that would protect it, as well as open it up to the public for study and research. So he did something about it with rather mind-boggling results.

But what about YOU? You may not have the stature of Ansel Adams, but I can’t help but believe your life’s work is important to you. What have you planned for preserving it after you die? If you’re the type who can’t get around to making a will, you really need to pull your head out of the sand if you care about the huge investment you’ve made in photography during your lifetime.

In the current (September 2011) issue of Black and White/Color magazine there’s an article by photographs appraiser Lorraine Anne Davis titled “Death and Taxes”. I can not stress how important it is that you read it. If you died tomorrow, what would happen to the mounds of photographs you’ve amassed over the years? Do you care?

I sell reproductions of the work of Ralph Farnham Blood. The rights are held by his grandson, William Blood. But Bill tells the story of how, when his father was cleaning things out after his grandfather’s death, into the garbage went the lifetime work of a nationally recognized and award-winning photographer: glass plates, prints, records, you name it. Bill hesitatingly asked his father if he could have them and when permission was given, fished it all out of the trash. Why did RF Blood’s son think the work was worthless? It is black and white, hand-painted photographs. With color film available in the 70′s – who wanted them? Who, indeed? ME. They are gorgeous. I am honored to invest in making available exquisitely printed, archival reproductions. The White House owns a large original of “Portland Head Light, 1931″. Ralph Farnham Blood and Laura Blood, who painted all the photographs, were famous and deserve a legacy.

Davis gives me pause when she gently writes that your work may be outdated and no longer as important to today’s marketplace as it used to be. If your family cares about your work, and discovers this information through an appraiser like Davis, what the heck are they supposed to do with it next? And she states that even if the body of work is still important, it was supported in your lifetime by your constant marketing efforts. Without that, will it all just go away?

Clearly, an archive of digital images is a lot easier to retain and store. You can make fairly short work of getting it sorted and keeping it all organized in one place. But if you, like most longtime photographers, have a mountain of film photographs and the fallout from them, and again, are like most photographers I know, you reign over a big, snarly mess and have no idea where a particular image is when you need it.

At this point, Davis asks ten vital questions that must be addressed by a photographer who cares about what happens to his life work. Questions like: “Who would want your archive and who would take care of it?” and “How will the reproduction rights be managed?” If you already have a headache after two questions, you need to consider these two questions, I’m afraid: do you really want to impose this impossible situation on your family members, and…do you think they’ll spend thousands of dollars to get your archive organized so can actually be dealt with?

Davis gives some clear and practical ways a photographer can get it together and pave the way for a much smoother path for the decisions that will have to be made about their life’s work by surviving family members. Get the magazine, read the two page article and get serious about organizing your past work and getting a plan in place to continue its legacy long after your obituary graces the pages of the local newspapers.

1 Comment »

c

Follow “VoxPhotographs Weblog”