Re: Richard Benson's new book
Hi Greg...
I should have been more precise in my denigration, shouldn't I?
Actually, I'm pretty sure I read the New Yorker article you cite.... But
your blurb is perfect:
"....The black-and-white prints made in this manner have a tonal richness
& subtlety that is not found in conventional photographs. The best of his
color prints look more like paintings than photographs. Each print
requires hours & hours of work. The result of this intensive labor is a
unique image; to make another he would have to repeat the entire process."
This could of course be taken for a description of gum printing. Tho today
(a gum scene Benson dismisses), the original negative might well have been
in color and the print (after "intensive labor," tho less intensive than
his process, and much less so once you get the hang of it) could have
been, should the photographer so choose, in full spectrum color, jazzed up
or down, stylized or "realistic," per the photographer's choice.
Of course I, personally, do not, NOT, NOT!!! prize a photograph because it
"looks like a painting." A photograph printed in paint might slightly or
largely resemble a painting, but if we value painting so highly, then
dammit -- PAINT !!!
Photography may well be still in formation...even aside from gum printing.
Now they're doing things like cell phone camera murals, which, seen
somewhere or other, were delicious. (Who woulda thunk???) In fact I
suspect that the contemporary genius of photography, rather than Benson's
"richness of tone," may lie in the "conceptual."
But my sloppily chosen "Johnny-come-lately" derives from the fact that the
fellow seems unaware of contemporary practice in gum and pronounces a glib
derogation -- possbily, perhaps, maybe, because the process cuts into HIS
territory ?!?
He valorizes "the clear and beautiful tonalities that lie at the core of
the photographic medium" -- that is, defines the "core of photography" in
terms of his own work. Others might define the "core of photography" in
other terms, such as -- oh, maybe for instance, catching "life" on the
fly, showing us things we might not notice otherwise, visual puns or
sudden visions, freezing "life" in 2 dimensions -- hundreds of other
aspects and revelations. (Try to imagine modern life, let lone modern
media, WITHOUT photographs!)
The Internet has been a hothouse for all "alt" processes, and one who has
failed to follow it (as seemingly has Benson) could be less than clued in.
I'm also forced by a higher power to point out that a fellow who dares
define what "photography" ought to be, is, well, the kindest thing I can
say is "ipso facto wrong"... however brilliant his personal technique.
(Would he dare define the best form of "painting" -- let alone "art"?)
Meanwhile and however, thanks for the heads-up...
best,
Judy
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Greg Schmitz wrote:
Judy, I would hardly call Richard Benson a "Johnny-come-lately." Some of his
printing work (ink on paper) is down right amazing. He first came to my
attention in the mid 1980's when a student at Yale mentioned Benson's work
with printing (photographic) on aluminum plates for permanence. See for
example:
Calvin Tomkins, Profiles, “A SINGLE PERSON MAKING A SINGLE THING,” The New
Yorker, December 17, 1990, p. 48
ABSTRACT: PROFILE of Richard Benson, photographer & printer of photographic
books. In 1986 he received a 5-year MacArthur Foundation grant of $212,000.
He has revolutionized photography He has invented a method of printing
photographic negatives in acrylic paint on light-sensitized sheets of
aluminum. The black-and-white prints made in this manner have a tonal
richness & subtlety that is not found in conventional photographs. The best
of his color prints look more like paintings than photographs. Each print
requires hours & hours of work. The result of this intensive labor is a
unique image; to make another he would have to repeat the entire process.
Benson supports his family mainly through his work as a printer. In the field
of publications dealing with photography as an art his work is considered to
be in a class by itself.
--greg
Judy Seigel wrote:
Quote:
It is a poor process, which we see here at its best in this landscape
made in French town about 1910. Despite its occasional successes, gum
bichromate is a poor process, unable to render the clear and beautiful
tonalities that lie at the core of the photographic medium.
Some day someone will make an anthology of all the "cores", "essentials,"
and unique attributes of photography handed down to us by "experts" since
day one. Not to mention all the (false) pronunciamentos about gum:
This Benson fellow is not only a Johnny-come-lately, he's obsolete, as even
a newbie reader of this list would know. (Tho his dummkopf-itude is
outranked by John Schaefer, who spent long hours and many tubes of paint
with David Scopick in the grand chore of listing the BEST mix for every
color in gum printing for his book on "alternative processes" -- both
"experts" blissfully unaware that just naming the colors, eg., "yellow
ochre," "venetian red" or "viridian green," is meaningless, because every
manufacturer has its own mix, names, additives and pigment sources.)
Not to mention that if all photography could claim for itself were "clear
and beautiful tonalities," it would have died dead and forgotten the moment
inkjet printers arrived (assuming you could carry an inkjet printer into
bed, bath and beyond)... But that's not why I write at this moment, which
is to note something I'd forgotten, and now recall, thanks to the
above-mentioned "wisdom."
We had a list discussion some months ago about Bill Jay's book on Demachy,
which, as I noted, was mostly nekkid ladies, plus a (very) few coy side
views of men. But I recently came across a small book on my own shelf,
which I'd picked up somewhere or other: "Robert Demachy" from the
"Collection Photo Poche" with an introduction by Michel Poivert.
1997, Editions Nathan, Paris, ISBN 2-09-754 117-8. I forget the price, but
not a lot.
Many of the 61 prints shown are gums, including of course many firm fleshed
young ladies in the altogether, but the variety, colors, and handling in
all media (most of them pigment prints of one kind or another) are just as
"photographic" as whatever Benson's ideals may be (tho I take him as from
the how-many-tones-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin school of photography
founded by -- what was his name ... Anstel somebody??? -- the fellow who
gave the world arithmetic in Roman Numerals).
Anyway, these Demachy's, even in cheap repro, show "clear and beautiful
tonalities" of many shades -- tho if that's all you look for....
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz, I just fell asleep.
PS: The book is in French, tho little more difficult than "Nu au lit, gomme
bichromatee, vers 1900."
J.