Re: Gallery lighting.

[Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>]

On Sun, 19 May 2002, [iso-8859-1] roger kockaerts wrote:

>
>  Hello Leonard, The recommended lighting of precious lightsensitive
> photographic artefacts, thus also of color prints, is a limited exposure
> of around 50lux which indeed is pretty dim. On the other hand, good
> viewing conditions of color material ask for an ambient lighting of
> 300lux which puts us before a dilemna. What should a gallery owner
> decide if he wants to sell the items he exhibits? Some of our museums
> tend to use relative strong lighting conditions and to protect their
> most valuable historic photographic prints with a black veil which can
> be lifted temporarily by the visitor. In other instances you have to
> allow your eyes to gain their night vision before attempting to decypher
> the works of art. Greetings from Brussels, Roger

Except in a museum exhibit of very old and precious art, I haven't seen
either black veils or low lighting, so either Seattle is way ahead of us
or they haven't heard about UV proof glass. Meanwhile, I offer my
considered opinion that this preciosity is wasted on a Robert Adams.
They're faded (or look faded) at the outset. In fact I can't recall ever
having seen another photo show with prints as unsatisfying as his (though
the first Jock Sturges show, also at Witkin, came close).

The absolute worst was an Adams show of whatever nondescript nothing long
ago at Witkin Gallery (I mean we agree about development despoiling the
land, but that's insufficient art for $7, let alone $12, which is about
what you pay in this city for museums with the lights on).  Another Adams
show was maybe 7 years ago at -- was it Simon Lowinsky Gallery?  The
nudniks had an Adams show of waves & water paired with a Le Grey show of
waves & water plus a sailboat and clouds, also Le Gray salt prints from
large format photographs of the Mona Lisa, among the most beautiful
photographs since the dawn of time, and IMO more exquisitely beautiful
than the original.  (Price was $60,000, which seemed a bargain. I hope a
museum got one or more... DEFINITELY worth $7 to gaze upon.)

However, as I have also mentioned a time or two, the world rarely heeds my
advice.... Robert Adams is a certified "great" (maybe it's the virtue
factor ?). Meanwhile, as noted, there's the possibility that the lighting
wasn't so bad & the problem was the blah wishy washy prints.

best,

Judy