>
> As to silver gelatine prints in galleries, they are often disappointing.
> Reproductions in books are often far more pleasing,
>
> I remember a Brandt exhibition of' camera ready prints' that were covered
in
> knife marks and Snopake. They were interesting as a demonstration of how
prints
> are prepared for publication.
>
> Once Peter Marshall wrote in the visitors book at the 'Photographers'
Gallery',
> ' I do not see why you have hung these as the prints in the book are far
> better.' Not something to endear one to the curators, but he was
undoubtedly
> right.
>
> Terry
This point was beautifully made at the Brandt show at the Barbican more
recently where a considerable number of copies of Picture Post and Weekly
Illustrated were displayed along with the bromide prints. He obviously had
studied the process and knew just what the printers wanted and what they
could do with it - and no doubt they were left in little doubt as to what he
wanted. I discussed this with Ian Jeffrey (the curator of this show) and I
think we agreed over some of the problems involved.
I went to another show at the Photographers Gallery recently where if they
still had a visitors book I might have made a similar comment (I think it
was the V & A before by the way Terry, but you could be right). Someone
whose work I had long admired in publication turned out so disappointing on
the wall.
This probably isn't the best place to discuss it, but it seems to me that
much photography is in any case best suited to the intimacy and scale of the
book rather than the gallery wall. One prime example to bring us back
towards the topic would be the work of Emerson - best seen as he published
it. And of course Emerson also held and worked with (at least when it suited
him) some slightly curious theories of vision (I think from Helmholtz?).
Hey, I think I have managed to work this back almost to 'physiology vs.
sensitrometry' :-)
Peter
Peter Marshall