Ramblings after a walk through a world-class gallery

[f/stopblues]

I've walked through this gallery dozens of times since it opened a year ago Sunday. It really hit me today, though, just how strikingly different most of the photos are than anything one might come across on this site or most of the other big photo sites, or even most other modern means for show.

The museum rotates prints every so often with a themed exhibit changing every three months. I'm floored every time I go in there, standing in front of some of the defining photos in all of our photographic history. Just tonight I saw photos by Avedon, Dorothea Lange, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, HCB, as well as albumen and salt prints from the late 1800's, and some dags from the 1840's. There were many many other notables, probably 60 or 70 total photos. In a word, incredible.

What struck me is that I'd imagine few of these photos would garner much support in the regular circles of forum-goers and online gallery browsers. I can just see all the calls for cropping and cloning; suggested tweaks that make them more crowd pleasing.

The photos I saw were original, daring, emotional, and human. They were an expression of the photographer and the subject, which I suppose is why they get to hang where they are. It just doesn't feel like the photographic community seems to value those aspects in modern photography. Are we losing touch with (in my opinion) the most significant part of our medium? Is the pool of images so diluted that the best just don't surface as easily? Maybe it's a simple case of my own taste being stuck in another era.

I guess it's just that I'm always moved by the photos at the museum and at other serious (historic) galleries, but rarely by galleries in the local art district or art shows or online galleries or blogs. What gives? Has there been a shift in priority or vision? Thoughts?

<end Ruben likeness> 😉

 

[Graham Line]

You're looking at exhibits curated by an individual, sometimes of photographers whose work has developed and evolved over several decades.
Here and many other places on the web, people post whatever they choose. The signal-to-noise ratio will be much different.

 

[erikhaugsby]

If I can ask, what museum are you talking about?

 

[Graham Line]

It doesn't take much courage or creativity for a museum/gallery to mount an exhibit of "photos by Avedon, Dorothea Lange, Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, HCB, as well as albumen and salt prints from the late 1800's, and some dags from the 1840's."
The classics are well worth learning, but seek out something more challenging.
One other thought: good work will be much more striking in a gallery than on a video monitor.

 

[f/stopblues]

I should say that those are just some big names I came across. There is a huge variety that is shuffled often. The museum is the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, MO. The Bloch building is the new addition holding the photo gallery. www.nelson-atkins.org

 

[erikhaugsby]

KC? Strange that I haven't heard of it before; I might have to make a day trip from Columbia.

 

[rbiemer]

I find a huge difference between real prints and anything I see in a magazine or on a monitor.
Books are sometimes close but still not as compelling for me.
And most--not all--of the digital prints I see are somewhere in between.

Living where I do is tough for getting to a gallery or museum but I do try to make a trip about once a year or so; this year I'm going to visit my grand mother (in Wichita, actually) and am planning to spend a day or two in KC because of the Nelson-Atkins.
Rob

 

[f/stopblues]

You're right, standing in front of an actual print in a proper setting probably lends a lot of power to it. I've seen "Clearing Winter Storm" by AA a zillion times in book and the net without thinking much of it, but standing in front of the actual print really dropped my jaw. Same thing happened with one of the better known (cliche now?) paintings, Starry Night. I've always had an eye roll reaction when seeing posters or even hearing someone talk about it. I saw it in person in Chicago.. my god it was beautiful!

 

[Graham Line]

There's also the situation that there are books, and then there are books. Some of the Sierra Club etc reprints do a disservice to photographers in terms of paper, printing and binding but at least they get the images out there.
The classic case was the first edition of Eliot Porter's "The Place No One Knew," in which each plate looked like a color transparency laying on a light table -- the printing was that good. Following editions of the same book never captured the magic.
Unfortunately the really nicely-printed photo books are expensive and most libraries don't let them circulate any more. Too many have disappeared.

 

[Graham Line]

Sigh. Kind of an interesting how-to-look-at-pictures thread just dies, while the gear talk goes on and on and on. :bang:

 

[f/stopblues]

I tried! 🙂

 

[camera.bear]

I think that one of the things that has changed is the "durability" of images. Part of the nature of photography is the capturing of a single moment. Prints were created for their longevity and those captured moments were treasured. Something to return to again and again for years to come.

In the digital age, an infinitely smaller percentage of the exposures taken are ever produced as prints. Most are only ever viewed on display screens, and like TV images, they are ephemeral and without substance. And as with TV images, there seems to be a continual quest for the newest, trendiest and most exciting images. Then once the display changes, the hunt is on for the next "image of the moment ". This change in the medium certainly has had a change on the image taking process. It seems that images have become disposable due to the medium and the sheer volume of images being produced, i.e:

From Flickr.com:
There were 2,778 uploads in the last minute.

 

[35mmdelux]

millions of people speeding on the freeway daily. doesn't make them race car drivers.

 

[camera.bear]

millions of people speeding on the freeway daily. doesn't make them race car drivers.

but it does change the flow of traffic.

 

[oftheherd]

I wonder how much of it has to do with lighting and "presentation?" I have had the same experience with paintings. Many looked sort of nice in good books, but what was all the hullaboo? Then I saw some of them in the National Gallery of Art In Washington, DC.

I was quickly struck by how nice they looked. Then I got wondering why. I may be wrong, but I concluded it was mostly lighting, as well as presentation. I think the lighting was what really did it. I also saw some AA prints in one of their satellite galleries near Chinatown. Sadly, I wasn't as impressed as I expected to be. Prints I have seen at the main gallery seem better presented and lighted.

Interesting thread.

 

[Nh3]

For most amateur photographers just turning pro and making some money out of their photos is a dream... Aspiring to be a photo artist and aim for the big league is beyond the scope of professional photographers let alone amateurs.

Its an impossible struggle.

 

[rbiemer]

... Something you can hold in your hand and look at over and over with the years reveals, to me, a lot more about the photo and the photographer.

Books have their place and I do love them; and your words explain part of why I like them.
The ability to look at the same images over time and see how my reactions or interest have changed (or not). I hope that my feelings do change over time as I learn more about both photography and myself.
There is another reason, for me, that applies too:
I saw (in KC) an exhibition of Gertrude Kasebier's work some time ago. I'd read about it in the Springfield, Mo ( where I lived then) newspaper and the single smallish photo they had was compelling enough to me that I went and have since bought a couple of books of her work. Neither the books nor the frankly awful newspaper reproduction are as good as the prints that were in the show but the books remind me of what I saw.

And much like prints, books have their own appeal as objects, for me.
Rob

 

[Graham Line]

For most amateur photographers just turning pro and making some money out of their photos is a dream... Aspiring to be a photo artist and aim for the big league is beyond the scope of professional photographers let alone amateurs.

Its an impossible struggle.

Not impossible at all. It requires dedication and persistence, but finding a place to hang a mini-show is very easy these days.
In my city there are many restaurants and coffee shops, hospitals, city buildings, small colleges and so on that are more than willing to display a dozen or so prints that are properly matted and framed -- which I will agree is very expensive. People then can move on to co-op galleries and dealers if they find a big enough audience.
You have to think about whether you want to get rich (probably won't), build a bit of a name for yourself, or simply share your work with a wider audience.
I really enjoy seeing these displays -- some are very traditional and predictable and some are very different and intriguing.

 

[f/stopblues]

For most amateur photographers just turning pro and making some money out of their photos is a dream... Aspiring to be a photo artist and aim for the big league is beyond the scope of professional photographers let alone amateurs.

Its an impossible struggle.

It's impossible to a lot of people, in the sense that you must aspire to be an artist in "the big league and beyond" for the right reasons. It's an attractive prospect to make a comfortable living and achieve notoriety in high-end fine art photography. I think most "successful" photogs (successful as an artist, subjective of course) got there because they just had to. Their drive and motivation towards the art is engrained and undeniable for them.

 

[Spider67]

"...but the books remind me of what I saw. "

My exact feelings. Timothy Greenfield took 30 portraits of porn stars (XXX in roman numerals)with a View camera. I flipped through the book and I saw the original prints. No comparison possible! befor that i actually thought that watching the photos in books and just listening to recordings is as good as the real thing. Even in photography loathed by some as industrial process it is not