Joel Meyerowitz 9-11 exhibit.

[david k.]

I was making the rounds of the Toronto Contact festival (a month long

exhibit of photographic art), and visited the powerful World Trade

Centre exhibit by Joel Meyerowitz.

 

Meyerowitz spent 81/2 months and $250,000 of his time and money,

making photographs of the post 9-11 site, without a press pass or any

request from the city to record those events. He literally had to

sneak into the site everyday, and many times was ejected from the

"crime scene" as the authorities had labelled it.

 

At the exhibit is a video showing Meyerowitz shooting on location, and

talking about the project that he, to put it in his own words, was

recording for history (without any formal invitation), and in that

video it shows him shooting with his traditional 8x10 Deardorff as

well as a Leica M4 and what appeared to be a 50 Summicron. I was not

aware of him using 35 mm let alone Leica, as he is well known for

using one camera (8x10 Deardorff) and one lens, a 10" Wide Field Ektar.

 

He apparently took out a mortgage on his Cape Cod home to finance the

staff of assistants for the project, and finished up $200,000 in debt.

In the video he is doing shameless plugs for Hewlitt-Packard printers,

and is shown handling a digital Olympus camera.

 

The show is well worth the visit, it runs through May 31st.

[EricM]

"I was not aware of him using 35 mm let alone Leica, as he is well known for using one camera (8x10 Deardorff) and one lens..."

 

huh? Ever read "Bystander"? Meyerowitz and Winogrand established the accepatbility of colour street photography in the sixties and seventiesand and is famously known for 35mm film in a Leica. thanks for the link.

[john15]

Joel Meyerowitz has been using the Leica M and the Deardorff for years. There are some similarities in the way the two cameras are used, when you think about it.

[andrew_hull]

Actually, he had special agreement with the firefighters, who also made a request to

Giuliani to let him photograph, and it was agreed. Maybe he snuck in the first time, but

after that many people allowed him in and helped him. It doesn't diminish the work, but

that is thre full story as reported on 60 minutes IIRC.

[steve_bauer2]

I saw Meyerowitz lecture with a slide show of his 9-11 work. I thought it was very

powerful, and thought he brought his skill with landscapes to it.

 

He told us that he did kind of sneak into the site the first time -- but that he was granted

access after that and became friendly with the crew there. I live eight blocks from the WTC

site, and thought the pictures were devastating.

[eric_perlberg]

For what its worth Meyerowitz will be giving a talk at Tate Modern in London on 23 May. You have to book in advance.

[35mmdelux]

Joel recently stated that he started the 9-11 project with 8x10, but quickly switched over to 4x5 because of his age and camera weight issues.

I had heard that the images were contributed to the city of NY but have no other evidence than the sundry magazine article.

[jorn ake]

Contributing images to the collection at the Museum of the City of New York was evidently part of the deal with Giuliani for getting exclusive access to the site.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>...without a press pass or any request from the city to record those events. He literally

had to sneak into the site everyday, and many times was ejected from the "crime scene" as

the authorities had labelled it.</I><P>Not in the least bit true though it does make for a

good story.

[vic_.]

What I find astounding is that a lot of people react to this as if these are the first images they have ever seen of any man-made devastation, and that before this event no such thing ever happened. It seems to me that human beings need to relearn a bit of our ugly history. It's still very ugly today. It appears we have learned nothing.

[35mmdelux]

That is a hell of alot of film thru that leica!!

 

If he hawked the house for $250k and ended up $200K in debt - does that means that the project came in at about $450K (US) or $50k net?

 

Either way he is very generous and that Leica is probably a real beater now.

 

My only real quandry is why did Joel in his previous project use an 8x10 and then produced a book 3x4? Doesn't make sense to me.

[jtdnyc]

<What I find astounding is that a lot of people react to this as if these are the first images they have ever seen of any man-made devastation, and that before this event no such thing ever happened.>

 

Vic, the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were the largest man-made structures ever destroyed. The attack was a fairly low-tech surprise attack on a civilian target. Because of the site's location in New York, these structures may have been seen in person by more human beings from more parts of the world -- and thus may be missed by more people worldwide -- than any other large structures that have ever been destroyed. The totality of the destruction surprised everyone, including, by some accounts, the surviving terrorist planners. The instantaneous loss of almost 3,000 civilian lives absent a state of war, while perhaps not unprecedented in human history, is certainly uncommon.

 

I'm not surprised by people's reactions to these photographs, but I am surprised by your astonishment over their reaction.

[35mmdelux]

Although a horrific unprovoked attack on a civilian target, 9-11 is by no means the largest structure ever destroyed. The largest, yet justified, attack was visited on the Hiroshima and Nagaski, when both cities were nuked.

 

The possibility of 9-11 goes to the weak US administrations not tending to business of the American people.

[jtdnyc]

Paul, I don't want to quibble, but a city is not what I meant by the word "structure." Moreover, some people claim that the destruction caused by the non-nuclear bombing of Dresden was comparable to that at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

My point was simply that it's not hard to understand the depth of people's reaction to the devastation at Ground Zero, if you look at all the factors: scale of destruction, element of surprise, civilian status, absence of war.

[35mmdelux]

Your point is well taken and duly noted.

[stephen_w.]

"It seems to me that human beings need to relearn a bit of our ugly history. It's still very ugly today. It appears we have learned nothing."

 

5000 years ago we were still fighting, but over more important reasons than oil, territory, religion and ethnicity, life food, well, territory, clan/family/tribe. The only difference is that then threw stones or used sticks. In the last thousand years we have developed easier and bigger ways to kill one another.

[vic_.]

Jonathan, if you reread what I wrote, I expressed astonishment at the people's lack of awareness of human tragedies outside the United States, as if dead corpses from other countries don't count when it comes to human loss. I wasn't saying anything about their reaction to the 911 pictures. Before you react negatively to what I have now written, think about Rwanda, Darfur, the Tsunami, and the 30 odd wars taking place today. Can enough Americans even point to Sudan or Rwanda on a map? As a nation we are more fixated on idiotic women running away from weddings, or some other "reality" based TV show. Also, there isn't enough outrage over people dying in Iraq, possibly because the media has done a good job of keeping it off the newspapers. Our only concern is the high price of gas, which is why we haven't tackled the root cause of 9/11, the Saudi government.

[jtdnyc]

Vic, my response to your original post dealt specifically with the point you made in that post. If you now want to use this thread to make political points unrelated to Meyerowitz's photos of 9/11, you're on your own.

[vic_.]

Jonathan, you eloquently illustrate the whole problem. Please continue to see everything in discrete form, unrelated to anything else. For example, 9/11 is not unrelated to the larger world, but you choose to just see this one segment and ignore the greater context. That is precisely the problem to which I alluded. Thank you for the QED.

[Brian_Edwards]

First:

 

"What I find astounding is that a lot of people react to this as if these are the first images they have ever seen of any man-made devastation."

 

Second:

 

"I expressed astonishment at the people's lack of awareness of human tragedies outside the United States."

 

How do you know how some of us feel? What lack of awareness? If I were you, I wouldn't be so presumptuous.

[jtdnyc]

<Jonathan, you eloquently illustrate the whole problem. Please continue to see everything in discrete form, unrelated to anything else.>

 

Vic, the condescenion doesn't become you. Can't we talk about photographs, and people's reactions to photographs, without either of us presuming to know more than the other about the interconnectedness of world affairs, or to be more morally attuned to human suffering? Can't we have a civil discussion without bashing any nationality, including Americans?

[jtdnyc]

That's "condescension," of course.

[vic_.]

Jonathan, I'm a US national. Why is it that we can't criticize our own country without people labeling us as unamerican or traitors or aliens? Is this the new world order?

[Brian_Edwards]

Who accused you of anything? You can be as critical of anything and anybody as you want. I don't believe that anyone on this thread has accused you of being "unamerican." You brought that up.

[jtdnyc]

<Why is it that we can't criticize our own country without people labeling us as unamerican or traitors or aliens?>

 

Vic, I gathered from your prior post that you are a US national. No one in this thread has labeled you as un-American or a traitor or an alien. I merely suggested that we maintain the civility of the discussion by not bashing any nationality, including our own.