The NYTimes on an Adams Exhibition

An interesting article from the NY times about the touring Adams

exhibition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/arts/design/11ANSE.html

What a strange review. It's almost as if he went to the show determined to not like it, but because of the quality he couldn't bring himself to pan it.

The Times article is as much a review of John Szarkowski's treatment of Adams' work as anything. Mr. Szarkowski, who put the traveling "Adams at 100" exhibit together, has great credentials and has done much to support photography as a legitimate medium for fine art but some people wonder whether he ever "got" Adams.

 

For those who have not read Kenneth Brower's online review of the "Ansel Adams at 100" exhibit, find it at:

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/brower.htm

 

The byline to Mr. Brower's article is "The photographer would not have been pleased by this new retrospective."

I saw this show at SFMOMA in 2001 -- and it was a bit overwhelming. The scope of it there was large enough to make it difficult to properly try to comprehend each photograph. That's not a criticism, it is a compliment.

 

The show everyone SHOULD have seen, IMHO, was the one in the museum at Yosemite last year. For the most part these were Ansel's personal prints, the ones that hung on the walls of his home and his children's homes. It was a much more compact showing, perhaps twenty photographs, but they were also quite in context -- you could see Ansel's own print of "Monolith, the Face of Half Dome" and then take fifty steps to your left and stare at the face of the granite in person. Then, if you were so inclined, you could actually walk to the place where Ansel took the photograph (it is quite the hike) and take your own shot. Somehow, this made it far more intriguing than anyplace in Queens ever could be, relative to message Ansel tried his entire life to convey.

 

Remember, reviewers can see, they can talk about it, they can love it and desire it, but they cannot DO it.

"What a strange review."

 

I don't think it strange. It was simply written by a person with no understanding of the art of photography. Note her obsession with "thematic content" and the sequencing of the prints. Adams cared nothing about these things and neither should the viewer. (Surely Szarkowski doesn't.)

 

After reading the NYT review, I want to see it more than ever. It sounds like there are a lot of early prints, pre-1940, when he did his best work and that a lot of them are contact prints.

I think is actually funny, this woman`s preoccupation with the venue, the "theme" the way they are hanged chronologically....lol..everything but the pictures themselves....

And then she talks about the pictures by saying..well this one has "fluffy clouds" if she only knew how difficult it is to take pictures with "fluffy clouds" and then print them and make them look "fluffy"..lol. She is probably a recent graduate and as such has no experience doing reviews. Call me crazy but if I was asked to review this show, I would have first try to identify the basic concept and reason for the show. The show is not about the prints, famous as they are, it is about the progression in Adam's work and it should be taken as a body of work of a lifetime, without thematic guides or chronological sense. Certainly the spots on the floor should not have mattered...perhaps her attention span is not that well exercised...

Having seen the show, I thought the review was pretty close in many aspects. I found the show very jumbled and confused. I don't think it really knew what it was doing. I was certainly underwhelmed by the collection of images as a whole. I thought it succeeded in highlighting most of Ansels weaknesses more than anything.

This is a review of the show, not of the the value of the life's work of Ansel Adams. It appeared to me that the reviewer's complaints about the show were that it did not provide proper context to give a sense of Adams' artistic vision as it evolved and became more refined over time. The suuroundings -- a warehouse in Queens -- would not provide the type of environment in which you would normally encounter smaller works(compared to paintings and sculpture). Perhaps the title of the show might lead one to expect more of a chronological survey of the work. Nowhere did I note any "dissing" of Adams' work.

My apologies to Ms. Boxer for my failure to note the apparent gender of the reviewer.

I enjoyed reading both the review and Mr. Brower's response. Enlightening on both accounts. Thanks for posting the links.

 

If anyone is going to be in N. California and wants to see some spectacular Adams prints in person, there is an exhibit at the MUMM Napa Valley winery through Sept. 7. This is a group show put on by the Ansel Adams Gallery (you will find a few of my prints in the show). Ansel's grandson Matt has hung 27 prints from the family collection including many of Ansel's hallmark pieces. For more info go here:

 

http://www.anseladams.com/

 

and look for the link to the Mumm show.

 

Kerik Kouklis

 

http://www.kerik.com

Kerik,

 

Is this the same show of prints that was in the YNP last summer? If so, it is a must-see.

Charles,

 

Don't know if these are the same prints. I did not see the show last summer.

When I went to the link for the review all I got was a subscription form. I don't want to subscribe to the NYT and get spams from their buddies. Can some one find a direct link to the review?

Jeffrey, do what I always do in such cases - just fill the boxes in with garbage. You can be more inventive if you like and subscribe known spammers or <postmaster@*****.com> (where *****.com is the name of the site). Much fun for all ages...

 

Cheers,