KenR
Well-known
I just returned from "Only in New York: Photos From LOOK Magazine" at the Museum of the City of New York. Don't waste your time. No actual photographs were present, only 12 canvas panels hanging from the ceiling - on each were reproductions of 6-8 photographs. As this was in a corridor on the 2nd floor, I naively thought that these were hanging outside of the main exhibit space. Wrong. This was it. Of minor interest was that Stanley Kubrick started off as a stringer for LOOK before he switched to movies, with several of his photos given credit.
Physically the panels were black and were quite difficult to see. Two of the panels were "illuminated" by a single spotlight and one panel did not have a light shining on it at all. I walked around with my head in the air looking for a burned out spot so that I could notify a guard, but there was no spot aimed at this panel.
If you're going to the trouble of finding the original negatives from the archive to make these panels, why not make a print to put on a wall? This is one of the few times I can say that the exhibit catalogue was far better that the original show. Don't waste your time and money ($10 general admission) on this show.
Physically the panels were black and were quite difficult to see. Two of the panels were "illuminated" by a single spotlight and one panel did not have a light shining on it at all. I walked around with my head in the air looking for a burned out spot so that I could notify a guard, but there was no spot aimed at this panel.
If you're going to the trouble of finding the original negatives from the archive to make these panels, why not make a print to put on a wall? This is one of the few times I can say that the exhibit catalogue was far better that the original show. Don't waste your time and money ($10 general admission) on this show.
