From: Keith Gerling (keithgerling@att.net)
Date: 09/02/02-05:04:49 PM Z
Sorry, but there was no life in this show whatsoever. I admit that I
haven't read the catalog, but from what I saw, Szarkovski hasn't a clue what
was going on here. I don't put Adams on any pedestal, but I do hold a soft
spot in my heart for him from my younger days, so I was somewhat saddened,
no, perhaps bored is a better word, by this show. I've always thought that
Adam's "over the top", huge, work was kind of fun. Not to say that the
smaller works are bad, but I wasn't particularly impressed by the selection
here. And some of Szarkovski's points are jut plain silly. What did he
call Adams' depiction of Mt. McKinley? A "dirty snowdrift"? C'mon!
I guess my point here was, contrary to what Judy says, not ALL critics are
ready to sweep Adams into the "kitsch file". But that doesn't necessary
mean that they have any great understanding of it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com]
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 10:26 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: "CALENDAR ARTIST"
Keith Gerling wrote:
>
> I saw John Szarkowski's "Ansel at 100" MOMA show not too long ago. HE
seems
> to have deliberately avoided making reference to the "Ansel as Calendar
> Artist", featuring small works, and omitting the BIG Adams "trademark"
> works. I just thought I would make mention of this.
I was just about to bring that up, Keith; you beat me to it.
Szarkowski's catalogue essay for the show is thoughtful and respectful
and really seems to get to the heart of the man and his work; he
certainly doesn't dismiss Adams as a calendar artist.
I'd never cared much for Adams until I mentioned in passing to someone
on this list that Adams' work hurt my eyes, and he pointed me to the
earlier work, which I like much better. So I'll have to disagree with
Keith about the show; I prefer Szarkowski's choice of what he considers
Adams' "more important" work to the better known later stuff, while
still agreeing with those arguing that Adams was an important
photographer whose work will pass the test of time; in fact it has
already. There's very little that's been done in the last 20-30 years,
in my opinion, (big names, I mean) that will hold up in the same way as
Adams and Weston have
Katharine Thayer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/02-03:47:07 PM Z CST