From: William Marsh (redcloud54@earthlink.net)
Date: 08/18/02-03:45:40 PM Z
Shannon,
I don't know if you noticed the small group of prints in the lobby of
the Hunter, separate from the main body of the show downstairs, but they
were versions of some of Ed's better known work, printed by Cole. I
spent alot of time running up and down the stairs comparing the prints.
Cole's versions are way different in feel, to me anyway - not better,
not worse, just different. I like Ed's better though, I think. Cole's
are missing something for me, but I'm not sure what.
I think this comes down to the uniqueness of the individual printer.
Cole could have taken a lifetime of instruction from his father on how
to print a given negative and still not come anywhere near actual
duplication of a "Weston." And that is fine! How could it be any other way?
I've seen those notes on the glassines, in the flesh, as it were. They
make it obvious that Ed had, for lack of a better word, a "vision" of
what he was after. He SAW something - an expression that was not wholly
contained in the unmanipulated negative (and may not have been
discovered until the first work-print). Maybe that is the "something"
that separates an Ed "Weston" from a Cole "Weston."
In Maine, Cole told a story about his father and Brett being out
photographing one day, and Ed started setting up on a rock, with Brett
protesting how he had wanted to photograph that rock. Ed said to go
right ahead, because Brett's version would be a completely different
picture from his. Everyone makes their own versions.
So, was his vision "austere?" If you compare him to someone like Lee
Friedlander, with his deliberate chaos, then perhaps yes. Compared to
Ansel, much more passionate. Compared to Minor white, less mystical.
But, really, who cares? He saw HIS way, and very clearly. As was said,
one likes what one likes, without apology. Leave the judgments for the
Perls of the world.
BTW, to vary his print exposure times, he would raise or lower the light
bulb. We should all strive for such pinpoint accuracy! The point is
what the image conveys, and how you feel about it, not how you get there.
Bill
Shannon Stoney wrote:
>
> Carl,
>
> Thanks for the technical info about the lightbulb. I can't wait to try
> this.
>
> >
> > Weston's work has suffered from having a few iconic images reproduced over
> > and over again making his work seem more limited than it was.
>
> I think this is exactly right. I had only seen these images in books and
> slides until this show, and I had no idea how varied the work was, and how
> incredibly satisfying it is to look at until I saw the real prints
> yesterday. I am beginning to think that the essential thing about anybody's
> photographic education is to do whatever is necessary to see the real prints
> of the masters and mistresses of the art.
>
> The nude that
> > so upsets Judy is a good example of this. It's been reproduced ad nauseum,
> > but one reason it got that status is that of the eight or nine pictures in
> > the series, it's the only one that *could* be reproduced for many years
> > because the others all showed pubic hair, which back in those days meant
> > they could not legally be sent through the U.S. mail, and few galleries
> > would risk showing them. (See the fascinating book-length memoir by Charis
> > Wilson for a discussion of this and other sessions for which she was the
> > model, and a lot of refreshing myth-debunking.)
>
> Charis and Beaumont Newhall talked about this in the video. Apparently the
> MOMA board was very upset by what one of the secretaries called "public
> hair." Nancy Newhall insisted on putting some of those prints in the
> show, knowing that the board or trustees or whoever would throw them out.
>
> >
> > It's amazing how many incorrect myths surround Weston. That he was a
> > doctrinaire, concept-driven artist, that he can be defined by "the group
> > f.64" theories, that he used the Zone System, that he was "an austere
> > sensualist" (would someone please tell me what in the world Jed Pearl can
> > mean by that?) Who cares whether an artist is labeled modernist, or
> > post-post, or anything else by a yammering critic. Weston made fabulous
> > pictures, and they're worth looking at.
>
> That's it in a nutshell.
>
> Although I think I am beginning to understand the idea of "austere
> sensualist." I think it's sort of like the Japanese idea of "shibui" or
> "wabi sabi," the idea of very simple, very stripped-down things having a
> kind of material presence that is sensual, while being the opposite of
> baroque. Like tea ceremony bowls. I had never really liked minimalism
> until I went to the Chinati foundation this summer in Marfa and saw Judd's
> concrete boxes, which I photographed with a lot of pleasure, and also the
> aluminum boxes, which I was only allowed to take digital pictures of (no
> tripods allowed for some reason.) If you said, "Judd made 200 aluminum
> boxes of slightly varying design, but all basically the same size, and put
> them in two big rooms," I would say, "So what?" But when you see them, they
> are, well, sensual. You want to touch them, although you're not allowed.
> The light plays all around them and on their surfaces in fascinating
> reflections and mirrorings of the other boxes and the outside grasses and
> sky. IT's austere, but it's sensual. Go see it! Marfa is cool. (Another
> must-see is the Mystery Lights.)
>
> I'm not sure I would agree with Jed Perl that Weston is a minimalist
> photographer, but there's something of the minimalist aesthetic in some of
> his work.
>
> --shannon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:49 AM Z CST