MOMA

The NY Times Magazine had an article in last Sunday's edition on the

the newly renovated and reopened Museum of Modern Art. The Nov. 15

<i>New Yorker</i> had two articles, one by John Updike. The critics

all seem to love the new MOMA; I'm wondering if anyone in the forum

has had a look at it. I'd be very interested in knowing if it is

worth a visit, particularly in regard to the currently displayed photo

collection. I also seem to recall a section in the old MOMA devoted

to excellence in modern industrial design, and I'm wondering if any

cameras made it into that display. (And, if not, which would be your

nominees?)<br>    I was only a little shocked to learn that

the entry fee for the MOMA now stands at $20. Thirty-five years ago a

portrait client presented me with a membership to the MOMA, which

meant that I visited it at least weekly, usually on Saturdays, I

think, when I could also attend silent film screenings complete with

piano accompaniment. I don't know what a membership would cost these

days, but my guess is that I would be willing to do some serious

portrait work again to get one.

The Leica M is preported to be in the MoMA collection.

 

A membership at the new prices is 75$ per year. I think that's quite a bargin.

The Getty museum is quite a deal then, with an entry fee of free. All you have to pay for is parking.

Mike, the museum doesn't re-open until this Saturday, the 20th.

 

I do have a friend who just started work there, but she's been too busy training to

report to me on the exhibitions. ;-)

 

I believe there will be free admissions opening day. Of course, the lines will probably

run around three or four New York City blocks. ;-)

 

The price is pretty steep. But then again, art is not for the unwashed masses. (I'm

being sarcastic.)

 

Bell & Howell Foton.

"<i>...All you have to pay for is parking.</i>"<br><br>Well, that plus $300 airfare from Albuquerque.<br><br>I have to say I'm a little surprised that an M Leica would make it into the collection rather than a C. My impression was that the criteria was originality and simplicity. To me, the M line represents more what is possible when price is no object, rather than being an example of extraordinary innovation. Of course, it could be argued that no other manufacturer has the tradition of excellence, but it seems like the modern Leica is more a committee project than the product of unusual genius like that of Fuller, Teague or Eames.

When I was a young art student, a fellow art anarchist and I staged an art action during the opening of a brand new art museum on the campus of our college (William & Mary). We were promptly thrown out on our ears and other parts by an extremely large blond female security guard. As we wore masks, no one knew who we were, but colleges are colleges and word got around. One day, a note appeared inviting us both to meet with the director of the museum. We accepted and sat down for a couple hours to discuss art, politics and museums. He was very nice, young, intelligent and (seemed) interested in what we had to say about access to exhibition space for struggling young artists. Afterwards, he invited us to attack his museum any time we liked, and he would instruct the guard to stand back and let us do our worst. Masterful. I don't think we ever tried anything again. We had been completely disarmed by The Man, but that was alright because he was a good guy. That guy was Glenn Lowry. Now he is director of MOMA.

 

I don't think his past invitation extends to include his current posting however, though I would like to see him again. Quite a job he is doing at that museum.

Pretty neat story, Jorn. You ought to put that in a letter to The New Yorker.

IIRC, the Kodak Bantam Special may be in the MoMa collection, along w/some of the other Walter Dorwin Teague art deco Kodaks.

It did seem like a neck and neck race between the B&H Foton and the M Series was a bit too limited in scope. Just to clarify, the Foton was the first AE camera?<br>    It did seem to me that Teague's Eastman Bullet ought to fit in there easily as well, but I'm thinking earlier Kodaks ought to have a place too, and I'm too ignorant of the line to know which one was most important. I remain in awe of my No. 2 Folding Brownie Autographic with the Rapid Rectilinear, but the viewing system does leave a bit too much to the imagination.

<A HREF="http://www.vintagephoto.tv/foton.shtml">Foton information</A>.

The Kodak Super 620 (I think that's the name) was the auto-exposure camera. A nice

piece of design itself.

 

Actually, now that I look at it, the Foton is pretty ugly. It probably shouldn't be in the

running. It looks like a Zeiss Ikon camera case. ;-)

 

I nominate the Polaroid Land Camera 100-series in its stead.

According to Amazon's description of the "Objects of Design" book, MoMA has the Minox in its collection (http://tinyurl.com/5vvy2).

$20 to get through the door is way much though I think you can get in free on friday after 4PM.There certainly are classic cameras that could be candidates for exhibit at the MOMA: Leica IIIc/f, Contax IIa, Retina IIa/c just for openers. Others?

Compared with everything else, I can live with $20. It costs about $14 or $15 for a round-trip ticket to NYC from central New Jersey. Hell, the Pennsylvania Turnpike is now about $18 to get from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia -- the Turnpike Commission is a band of thieves.

 

Now, as far as other possible entries. How about the Kodak 35 sitting next to a Retina IIc or the Signet 35? Hard to believe all three came from the same company.

 

I have to confess that I like the plastic Zeiss-Ikon Ikonette and its "swoopy" shape. I'd probably petition for the Rollei 35. Maybe the Mercury II with its huge "setting sun" dial or the folding Contessa.

Thanks David, that was very informative about the Foton. It was just disappearing from view when I got into photography. Before now the only things I knew about it were the Jason Schneider articles in Modern. It seems to me that both the Foton and Kodak's Ektra were designed by committees.

In addition to the page cited by David Bedell, Stephen Gandy has a good Foton article on his Cameraquest site (http://www.cameraquest.com/foton.htm).

 

FWIW, I have a Foton & find it in some ways to have a remarkably ergonomic design, @ least in the camera's overall shape & the placement of the shutter release & shooting mode switch (auto/semi-auto)--I also think it's aesthetically pleasing, in a Buck Rogers/Amazing Stories kind of way. The Foton's greatest flaw is its sorry RF window (the separate VF & RF windows aren't convenient, but wouldn't be a dealbreaker if the RF window were more usable)--it's not only tiny, dim, & squinty, but lacks any magnification like other RFs of the same time period (e.g., Leicas, Bantam Special). The VF window is adequate, however. If you don't need to do a lot of critical focusing, e.g., if you zone focus or use hyperfocal, the Foton is actually fast & easy to use in the field; I sometimes contemplate having Ken Ruth or the S.K. Grimes outfit convert a Nikon RF 35/2.5 w-Nikkor to Foton mount so that I could have a wide angle lens for Winogrand-style shooting.

 

My guess is that Bell & Howell probably limited the size of the VF & RF windows because a larger RF/VF assembly would have unacceptably increased the Foton's size. In retrospect, I would say that it's already a big camera (for a RF) & an extra 1/2-inch or inch on top would have been worth the increase in useability; w/all of its other advanced features, a Foton w/an improved VF/RF could have been a real contender in the market, even given its super-high retail price.