VoxPhotographs Weblog

Ansel Adams: $35 a print.

Posted in READ THIS! on December 3, 2011 by voxphotographs

In the beginning… there was Limelight Gallery.

I first heard about Limelight Gallery while reading the book “Street Scene – The Psychological Gesture in American Photography, 1940-1959″. From there I ordered Helen Gee’s memoir “Limelight” (1997) and her book “Photography of the Fifties – An American Perspective” (1983). All this took place last winter (2011) and I’m finally getting around to writing about this amazing scene.

Helen Gee opened the first gallery in the country to exhibit only photographs. The Limelight Gallery was located on Seventh Avenue in Greenwich Village and operated for 7 years.

Gee’s ability to run a business was non-existent but she was an avid photographer and one day while eating a sausage sandwich in NYC where she lives, she had an epiphany: “Why not open a European-style coffeehouse and combine it with a gallery devoted exclusively to photography?” Thus starts the story of a 7-year odyssey of horrible business practices, few – very few – sales, and a photographers’ hangout that became a legend.

Rarely had any gallery included photographs in their exhibits and even more rarely did a photograph sell. As Gee says, photographers just exchanged photographs and talked about them, but a sale was hardly considered part of the program. Helen Gee had to have a way to support a gallery to show photographs – assuming sales would be infrequent – and as coffee houses were springing up in NYC, she decided to create the combo.

Limelight was the first gallery in the USA to exhibit only photographs.

She decided the right photographer to launch the gallery would be Robert Frank and she made a decidedly bizarre visit to his studio/living quarters. Frank was not agreeable to the notion, but over the next year Gee featured the work of 24 fine art photographers (including Frank in a group show) ranging from Rudy Burckhardt to Berenice Abbott, and Ansel Adams to Edward Weston.

As the Limelight Gallery and coffeehouse exploded into the scene, Gee accomplished another of her goals for the place: it became THE hangout for the photography crowd. On any given evening you could wander in there and chat with Arnold Newman, Weegee or Lisette Model, among other now famous artists.

It was six months before she had her first sale. Minor White’s work was on display for 5-6 weeks in the fall and a young guy had been pondering the exhibit for an hour before he decided which image to purchase. AND he wanted to take it with him! In a panic, Helen Gee phone Minor White to ask his permission, seriously doubting he would give it, as the sequencing of his work in any exhibit was vital to him. Surprise! Here’s what he said to her on the phone:

“WHAT? Somebody wants to buy a photograph? And he wants you to take it off the wall? TAKE IT DOWN!”. It was a $10 sale, White receiving a check for $7.50 representing the balance after the gallery’s commission. He was delighted.

Advertisement for the Limelight cafe and photography gallery located at 91 Seventh Avenue South at Sheridan Square, published in The Village Voice on February 15, 1956.

Selling photographs is still a tough road for artists and galleries alike. When I was reading these books, I had just come off of a frustrating fall – I had put out so much energy promoting the work of the twelve artists associated with VoxPhotographs and had little to show for it. It was a sort of schadenfreude consolation to read that at Limelight, sales were few and far between. But on the other hand, it was deeply depressing. After 60 years, had nothing changed?

In February of 1956, Ansel Adams had his first show at Limelight. Over 50 prints were installed at a price of $35 each. Frankly, it’s painful even typing that sentence. Included in the show were two portfolios of work priced at $100. One of those portfolios was the only sale during the show. In fact, it was not overly popular, especially with other photographers. Comments were made that it was too dramatic, too romantic, not gritty enough for the NYC crowd.

Interestingly, Vincent Hartigan, head of the art dept. at the University of Maine, booked the second venue of Adams’ show. He had collaborated with Helen Gee previously – providing a second venue for Eliot Porter and Arnold Newman shows. Gee considered it a bold step for Hartigan to be including photographs in the mix of exhibits. Very few institutions were doing so.

Can you see why this whole scene is a fascinating read? It’s the BEGINNING of photographers showing work in galleries. And the stories! weird and amazing about Imogene Cunningham, Edward Steichen, and many others. There are stories about W. Eugene Smith that will curl your hair.

Gee is the first to admit in her memoir, “Management was not my forte. I was not good at firing. Neither was I good at paperwork.” And I can assure you this lack of business acumen and people management resulted in some really wacky scenarios more befitting the “I Love Lucy” series.

Men’s Fashions, Atget, Eugene (1857-1927). 1925 / printed 1956 by Berenice Abbott from Atget’s negative toned gelatin silver print.

There’s an interesting scene too, with Berenice Abbott, who approached Gee about an exhibit, but not of her own work. She had made prints from Eugene Atget’s plates and had had no luck in getting anyone interested in exhibiting them – including MOMA, George Eastman House and many other institutions. Julien Levy, who had collaborated with Abbott to save and preserve the Atget oeuvre, had had an exhibit of the prints priced at $10 – but no sales. Helen Gee tried $20 – Abbott insisted on keeping the price down, being very pessimistic about the success of the exhibit. But Gee had a hunch the Atget images would strike a chord with her crowd – and she was right. Forty of the sixty prints on view sold during the show.

As Gee worked her way through exhibits of the works of well over 100 photographers of the day including David “Chim” Seymour, Robert Doisneau and Gordon Parks, the strain and struggle of keeping the Limelight going became too much and she sold it. It went through several morphs, eventually becoming a transvestite bar “with a heavy drug scene” and was closed by police in 1971.

Her penultimate show of work, in 1960, featured the photographs of Paul Caponigro and Minor White. And the final kicker? From 12/16/60 – 1/31/61, the vintage works of none other than Julia Margaret Cameron were exhibited as the last hurrah. Did I mention Gee had no insurance by this time?

“Mrs. Duckworth” by Julia Margaret Cameron.

Helen Gee’s last sale as proprietor of the Limelight Gallery and coffeehouse was to Beaumont Newhall. He purchased a Julia Margaret Cameron portrait of Mrs. Duckworth (Virginia Woolf’s mother) for $45.

“Limelight” is just an amazing read – Helen Gee is not afraid to tell it like it was and my jaw was dropping constantly as I turned the pages. Winter’s here. Find a copy of the book and give yourself a big, juicy and unforgettable treat of a read to pass a few of those snowy hours ahead.

Photography of the Fifties – An American Perspective – published in 1983.

Saying it right…giclée? inkjet? pigment print?

Posted in HELP!! Doing it right..., READ THIS! on November 19, 2011 by voxphotographs

Jeffrey Becton lent me the book“Nash Editions – Photography and the Art of Digital Printing” (2006) when he visited the Portland gallery in October. I love the fact his “Looking West” (1994) is the first photograph in the book! But I also love what I’m learning about the history of digital printing.

While the book is far from perfect, for me it’s a Tutorial 101 about the transition from film to digital photograph printing. Nash Editions was the West Coast mecca for many artists in the early 90′s where they sat at the feet of the Iris 3047 inkjet printer there and marveled at the incredible renditions of their work coming off it. The fact that that printer is now ensconced in the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History speaks volumes about what has happened since then in the world of digital printing of photographs.

Along with the endless experimentation by many with respect to papers and other substrates, inks and print longevity, came a new lexicon. Thus was born the term “giclée”. According to this book, the art reproduction market felt “uncomfortable” selling something called “inkjet prints”. Jack Duganne decided to make up a word that sounded classier. Seeing as the inkjet nozzles spray inks onto the surface, he made use of the French verb (always sounds classier no matter what it is!) for “to spray” – which is “gicler”. Well, Nash Editions states Mr. Duganne meant the word as synonymous with “serigraph” but his website states pretty darn clearly with a quote from Publish magazine on the home page that he now considers it synonymous with “fine-art digital print”.

I have to admit that “inkjet print” always sounds unnervingly underwhelming to me and I was glad when we could actually claim that the print for sale was an “archival digital print”. Last year I was diplomatically updated by one of Maine’s esteemed fine art photographers that I should now be using the term “pigment print”. Even better. Considering everyone has their own inkjet printer and you get buy them for $50, getting away from that “everyman” term works for me.

Looking West (1994)©Jeffrey C. Becton

But what of “giclée”? I’ve always found the word pretentious and from what I’m reading so did most high level artists at the time – as well as the companies hired to make their prints. They refused to use it. So let’s go with the definition Nash Editions talks about: “The term is only applied to prints made with matte-surface fine-art papers or canvas.” It’s perhaps a good term for fine art reproductions on paper that are NOT photographs but anyone who wants to be taken seriously as a printer or photographer should studiously avoid the term in my book. It reeks of “fake” to me and with the other-worldly quality of prints coming out of digital printers these days, there’s no reason to use sleight of hand to sell them. They speak for themselves and besides, the market has kind of come around after all these years.

It IS interesting to read that the four companies who dominated the field in the manufacturing of printers, inks and papers had not traditionally been in the photographic films or papers (Canon made cameras and lenses of course) business. It would have made more sense if Kodak or Agfa had led the way, but that’s what happens when a process or industry completely changes course, transformed into a completely different creature. Epson took the lead in 2000 introducing dye-based inks to the market, then pigmented inks – and the rest is history.

In my book any photographer who prints their images on canvas should give up photography and take up painting. I hate it when photographers go to any lengths to make their photographs “look like paintings” – whether with digital darkroom gimmicks or substrates like canvas. And as for “giclée”? Let’s give it a decent burial and move on.

Pentecost (1981/1997)©Peter Ralston. This iconic image is also included in Nash Editions on p. 150. www.pralston.com.

2 Comments »

It’s about connecting…

Posted in Uncategorized on November 10, 2011 by voxphotographs

From time to time I invite a few fine art photographers to my gallery for a Salon. I serve a light supper and we talk about photographs and what’s on their minds as photographers – anything to do with themselves and the work. Each artist brings a new image, hangs it on the wall and after dinner each talks in turn about what he/she is doing and where they are going.

Last evening I changed the program a bit and invited Maine Media Workshop’s faculty member – and an extraordinary photographer in his own right – Brenton Hamilton to lecture on “Beyond Digital”. He had covered this topic in two separate Salons I hosted in the last six months for Museum curators and I knew the photographers themselves would get a lot out of it. They did.

Maine can be a bit isolated and isolating. Everyone’s busy taking pictures and making a living and many live hours from other artists, so it’s vital the fine art photography community be and stay connected with each other and the outside world. Last evening’s Salon worked on both counts: thirteen hard-working and mature artists came together to re-connect or connect for the first time, AND , thanks to Brenton, they got a darn good look at what’s happening out there in the rest of the world – how imagery is being pushed well beyond the digital camera experience.

You can’t see the future without knowing the past and in my opinion, Brenton is the state’s foremost authority on the history of photography. I studied with him for three semesters and would do so nonstop if the history of photography course were scheduled at a time that works for me and my bi-city life. I tell my photographers over and over – study the history of photography and know what and who has come before you. It’s vital to moving forward with a unique vision of your own.

I like the way Maine’s fine art photography community is eager to connect and stay connected. Many of last evening’s guests drove 150-200 miles roundtrip to have an evening with other professionals and increase their insight into their own work. I know friendships, professional relationships and real and valuable technical information being traded are some of the results of past Salons. Add the insight and knowledge of Brenton Hamilton to the experience and it’s a picture-perfect evening.

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 »

c

Follow “VoxPhotographs Weblog”