Walker Evans Exhibit

[Rich B NYC]

A Walker Evans exhibit opened today in New York City and will run through

November 9. Organized by the Yale School of Art and sponsored by UBS, the

exhibit features ink-jet prints made from digitized versions of Evans'

negatives.

 

Many of the prints are 8X10, but I guess they can no longer be called "contact

prints". There are also many enlargements showing the detail that one can

expect from negatives made with an 8X10 view camera.

 

Surprisingly (to me, at least), the detail appears to have been retained

through both the scanning and printing processes.

 

Most everyone here is probably familiar with Evan's work, but it's worth a look

if for nothing but the digital processes used.

 

UBS Art Gallery

1285 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10019

 

Admission is free.

 

Rich

[brian_ellis16]

I looked at the web site hoping to see a description of the equipment, materials, and workflow used to make the digital prints but didn't find anything there. Does the exhibit catalog contain any information like that? If so it would be nice if you could post it. I'm not surprised that the digital prints retain all the detail of the original contact prints, actually I suspect they could have improved on the originals (in technical terms, not artistic)if that had been the objective. But it would be interesting to know how they were done.

[michael_alpert1]

To justify this exhibit, the website for USB, "one of the world's leading financial firms," states the following:

 

'This innovative process of translating Evans' work honors the photographer's style and interests, since the precision of digital technology corresponds with Evans' preference for clearly presented information rather than stylized "fine art" prints. Evans also was eager to enlarge his work, but high costs and technological limitations made enlargements a rarity until late in his career, when he supervised enlargements for his 1971 exhibition at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, and for a portfolio in 1972.'

 

Does this statement make any sense to you? As far as I am concerned, Evans knew what he was doing and did what he wanted. He was not a poor boy who lacked the money for enlargements. This Yale/UBS exhibit is, I feel, another example of art being turned into pseudo-art by people who don't know that honoring art means leaving its integrity intact. Who are these UBS people anyway? What does UBS do for the two billion human beings who live in poverty today? Is this silly exhibit, which focuses significantly on 1930s poverty, going to help them in any way? Evans actually cared about his subject-matter; he wanted life to be better. Does thinking about his images as raw material for new technologies "honor" Evans's intent?

[Rich B NYC]

Brian,

 

Unfortunately, the catalog isn't available online and only contains reproductions of 5 photos. It also doesn't give much technical information. Simply that the negs were digitized and printed via inkjet. However, there was some mention made at the exhibit indicating that the inks were carbon-based. In fact, the title of the exhibit is "Carbon and Silver".

 

The digital versions do indeed show a wider contrast range. Shadow detail has been improved quite a bit. They actually have both the gelatin silver print and digital print versions of several photos available for comparison.

 

You can probably get a copy of the catalog sent to you by writing to Colin Thompson at the address above. He's the Director of the art gallery.

 

Rich

[brian_ellis16]

"Does thinking about his images as raw material for new technologies "honor" Evans's intent?"

 

Who knows. But we do know that Evans cared so little about his own work that he sold all of his prints to two collectors and then, still not happy with the amount of money that raised, sold all his negatives as well.

[alec1]

That's not fair, Brian. That sale took place w/i one year of his death. He was in very poor health, and spent most of the time from the sale until the end in a hospital. The prints and negs were certainly doing him no good by then. In that condition, I would have wanted some security too. It came too late for him to benefit.

[bill_b2]

Hurray for UBS and Yale.

 

I look forward to seeing more digital performances of scores created as film negatives. Walker Evans was no stranger to technology, as evidenced by his work with the Polaroid SX-70. He evidently did not mind having books printed with his photographs. Or them appearing in magazines, such as Fortune. And not as contact prints tipped in.

 

His work shows us the distance between us and others, and the closeness. As it always has.

[Rich B NYC]

Bill,

 

Evans' Polaroid is actually on display along with some of his other cameras. I never knew that he shot 35mm but there are a Contax and a Leica sitting right next to the Polaroid.

 

Rich

[michael_alpert1]

Fazal Sheikh is a contemporary photographer whose concerns about poverty and suffering are linked to an overriding vision of human dignity. I think Sheihk's work can help us to understand the way in which Evans's work was conceived and greeted in the 1930s.

 

The UBS Evans exhibit (and the technology-obsessed response to it on this forum thus far) shows little understanding of photography.

[bill_b2]

Thanks to Michael for introducing me to the work of Fazal Sheikh. His work, along with that of Walker Evans and many others, was in the Tate's "Cruel and Tender, The Real in the Twentieth Century Photograph." Also sponsored by UBS.

[brian_ellis16]

"The UBS Evans exhibit (and the technology-obsessed response to it on this forum thus far) shows little understanding of photography."

 

I won't comment on the statement about the responses here but with respect to the lack of understanding on the part of those who put on the exhibit, the digital prints in this exhibit were made by two people. One was John Hill, who was a colleague of Evans at the Yale School of Art, and the second was Sven Martson, who was Evans' personal printer in the 1970s. I suspect both gentlemen have at least a rudimentary understanding of photography in general and Evans' in particular.

[brian_ellis16]

"That's not fair, Brian. That sale took place w/i one year of his death . . . "

 

Actually there were two massive print sales. The first one took place in 1968, seven years before his death.

[michael_alpert1]

Brian,

 

I know that there is a long background on the part of the organizers. Whether the exhibit respects Evans and his work is another question. I think many others will agree that a body of artistic work that has its form set by an artist needs to be respected on its own terms, not used in an academic-exercise kind of way to show the power of new transformative technologies. This is not a question of intellect, which I am sure the organizers have in abundance, but a question of maturity. Although the exhibit may be helpful in opening up areas of technical concern that deserve discussion, as a vehicle to "honor" Evans it seems shallow, if only because the focus on technique neutralizes the content which is at the heart of the work. Not to pay attention to the heart of an artist's work is to miss the point. Period. That's what I meant when I suggested a lack of understanding.

 

About UBS, I have no idea who they are, which is why I asked a few (perhaps too feisty) questions about them in my first post. Do their art exhibitions, which apparently concern themselves with world poverty, contribute to alleviating world poverty?

[bill_b2]

UBS is a large international bank and wealth management firm. www.ubs.com

 

Do photography exhibits showing the destitute alleviate poverty? To the extent that viewers become more informed of the world, see things they do not want to exist, and take positive action, then yes. The benefits may be so indirect as to escape attention. The viewer of today's exhibit may be affected by it to vote in an election 12 years from now. Another viewer may decide to locate a new manufacturing facility next year in an area seen in a photograph. And yet a third viewer may withhold a planned donation, believing the problems in an area would not be alleviated, and give instead to another charity whose work elsewhere looks more promising.

 

The photographs taken by Walker Evans and others in the FSA did nothing directly to alleviate poverty. They were part of the public relations effort to rally support for governmental relief actions. To the extent the photos helped make the actions politically acceptable and to the extent those actions were successful, poverty was alleviated.

 

Sorry for a convoluted answer, but that is the way it is.

[michael_alpert1]

Thanks, Bill. I was thinking of more direct action. I looked through the UBS website. The corporation supports cultural events, purchases art, and otherwise does arty things; but charity seems to be something that they either don't do or that they hide quite well.

 

Last year I had a chance to study several hundred Walker Evans vintage prints in a museum collection. I was struck by the seriousness of the work. Even the prints that were technically off were deliberate and forceful. The best of the prints were gems, combining the formal beauty of photography with significant subject-matter. That experience has been on my mind as I have commented critically about this show and the response to it here. It is really sadness that I am expressing, not anger. Sadness that good work becomes art-junk when it is trans-formed (and perhaps disfigured) for no good reason.

[rodger_kingston]

Usually I avoid commenting in forums such as this, but there is so much misinformation and so many foolish statements being generated here that I feel I must clear up a few of them. Let me say at the outset that I am not an uninvolved bystander here: I am Evans' bibliographer, and loaned 20 or so books and periodicals to this exhibition. I know both John T. Hill and Sven Martson well, and am intimately familiar with both Evans' life and work and this particular exhibition.

 

First, Walker Evans stated many times that he was not in any way politically motivated in making his images; this even though during the time of his greatest work he was employed by the Farm Security Administration, a highly political federal agency. He ignored many of the directives given him by his boss, Roy Stryker, and was eventually fired for so doing. Evans didn't have any intentions or expectations that his work would in any way change the world, so no, Michael, he didn't "want life to be better."

 

Next, when it comes to John Hill and this exhibition "honoring" Evans and his work, you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, and in fact, you are making a complete fool of yourself. Mr. Hill was Evans' assistant during the last several years of his life, and the executor of Evans' estate for the twenty years between the artist's death and the Metropolitan Museum of Art acquisition of the estate. During those years he stewarded the estate with intelligence and dedication, and has produced or been responsible for upward of a dozen excellent, and in several cases indispensable Walker Evans books. And as far as his "little understanding of photography" is concerned, take a look at his new Evans book about to be released by Steidl next month; the scholarship is wide-ranging and impeccable.

 

Now, as regards your statement, "This Yale/UBS exhibit is, I feel, another example of art being turned into pseudo-art by people who don't know that honoring art means leaving its integrity intact," again, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Evans and all the FSA photographers made their photographs for the U. S. Government, which owned all rights to them. Later the negatives were transferred to the Library of Congress, where virtually anyone could purchase prints for whatever purposes they wanted. Evans and the other FSA photographers knew this and agreed to these terms. So your twaddle about honoring the art and leaving its integrity intact have not applied for any of the nearly 70 that the work has been in existence.

 

Now, as to the current exhibition and its digital prints: John Hill and Sven Martson have gone to great pains to produce prints at once true to their best perception of Evans' original intent, and consistent with the highest quality that current technology allows. Evans was vitally concerned with how his images looked when translated into ink on paper. He supervised every aspect of the production of his first book, American Photographs, down to the smallest details, and throughout his career paid close attention to the production of all his books. Who can know for sure what a man dead for over 30 years would make of the new digital photography and printing; what is known is that Evans kept abreast of the technical advances of his own time.

 

And finally Michael�s quote that put me over the top and prompted me to write this diatribe: "It is really sadness that I am expressing, not anger. Sadness that good work becomes art-junk when it is trans-formed (and perhaps disfigured) for no good reason." Cut the condescension and just go see the exhibition. If you shut your mouth and open your eyes maybe you'll see how the white heat of Evans' two incredible years with the FSA still burns brightly three quarters of a century later in this remarkable exhibition.

[michael_alpert1]

Rodger,

 

I think I am worthy of having a point of view. You want me to "shut my mouth" in lieu of expressing a simple bit of criticism on what I thought was a public forum of ideas. Leaving Evans's prints in the form in which he himself originally intended is not a radical notion. And I am have not offered "misinformation." In fact, I have not offered much information of any kind, only an opinion based on my serious interest in the history of photography. I don't think I've made "a complete fool" of myself; I've simply expressed a viewpoint that you do not share. I don't think I have expressed "twaddle." What I've said is easy to understand, responsive to the subject at hand, and (I think) without self-contradiction. I must say that I feel your heat. You have been publicly rude to me. I hope you would not treat the people around you in this manner. I do not expect you to budge from your disagreement with the viewpoint I have expressed. I hope, however, that after you calm down, you will apologize for your insulting tone.

[Rich B NYC]

As the original poster, I'm amazed at where that post has gone.

 

Be that as it may, I think that before anyone criticizes the exhibition, they should at least view it.

 

I don't shoot large format. I'm generally on the Leica forum but thought that the exhibition would be of interest here for obvious reasons.

 

My not shooting large format does not mean that I'm unfamiliar with its disciples or what prints produced from large negatives look like.

 

Had I not known beforehand, I would not have guessed that these prints were produced digitally. It was only after examining the silver prints that are available for comparison that I started to see the subtle differences between the two.

 

To my eye, these digital prints show more shadow detail than the conventional prints and sacrifice nothing in the bargain. I see that as a technical improvement that takes nothing away from the originals. Had that shadow detail not been in the negatives, it could not have been reproduced by any process, be it analog or digital. It was Evans who shot the negatives so I don't see a problem in reproducing what's already on them.

 

None of us knows what Evans would have thought of these prints. Much speculation has been made of what deceased photographers might think of the digital process in general and if they would have embraced it or hated it. Obviously, we'll never know.

 

I've been to the exhibit 3 times since it opened. Each time I came away with a very positive feeling for how it honored the photographer. There was no excessive digital manipulation. Certainly nothing more than any competant printer would do in the conventional darkroom.

 

Don't take my word for it. Go see it with your own eyes and then either agree with the intent of the organizers or not.

 

Rich

[richard_trochlil]

"...Thanks, Bill. I was thinking of more direct action. I looked through the UBS website. The corporation supports cultural events, purchases art, and otherwise does arty things; but charity seems to be something that they either don't do or that they hide quite well..."

 

That sounds like the old argument that if the Pope really felt for the poor, he'd sell the Sistine Chapel and give them the money.

 

As for Evans, he was one of the few photographers whose photos were such that if I went to the place he took them, I would see the photo. Opposite of A. Adams where I always felt if I went to the photo site, I'd see nothing that looked like the photo.