Subscribe in a reader
« Art Prize First for Photographer |
| 'Within the Stone': The Backstory »
Just published. Click on the image for the link.
Seriously. I want to be Henry Wessel.
Posted at 12:31 PM in Books | Permalink
New Yorker magazine called him "Coolest of the Cool".
Friday, 15 June 2007 at 02:40 PM
He's definitely a photographer's photographer; and the book, while a handsome piece of work, still does not do justice to his impeccable prints (among the most finely printed 35mm prints I have ever seen)- the reproductions are strangely lacking the deeper tonal values and therefore have a strangely "transparent" feel to them.
Stan B. |
Friday, 15 June 2007 at 03:15 PM
sometimes to wide for me, but always breathtaking pictures.
On the other side it's amazing how a man can literally and figuratively "create" various perspectives -- from narrow to wide -- using one, non-standard lens (28mm).
Friday, 15 June 2007 at 03:58 PM
Mike I think some one has beaten you to it.
Paul Amyes |
Friday, 15 June 2007 at 09:47 PM
I was not familiar with Henry Wessel's work before seeing this post. Thank you for the alert, Mike.
Having since looked at as much as I could find online my first cut at Wessel's work is that it's very much the 1970's style of artsy-ness, rather like Shore (whose work I generally don't admire). Wessel's work tops Shore's in terms of reflexes, composition, staging, and just plain talent. I see some images that pique my emotional response and curiosity. But many still seem modeled in the "1970's School of Pretentious Poinlessism".
Still, I'll take a look at the book and, on Stan's high recommendation above, I'll plan to take a look at Wessel's prints at the Art Institute of Chicago's photo department.
Ken Tanaka |
Friday, 15 June 2007 at 10:33 PM
There was a big Wessel exhibit at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) earlier this year -- fantastic work. Fans of Winogrand, Eggleston, Shore, and Frank, don't miss it. Wessel has taught photography in the Bay Area for a long time. Quite a few of the images are shot in Richmond, CA, which is near where I live. Even though I agree with Stan about the prints vs. the book, the book is still definitely worth a look.
Joe Reifer |
Saturday, 16 June 2007 at 05:02 PM
Is it true that Wessel only used a 28mm lens? I would have never guessed.
Maybe such a resource already exists, but it would be interesting to see a list of famous photographers and what cameras, lenses and film they frequently use(d).
Joseph Vavak |
Sunday, 17 June 2007 at 12:25 AM
Nice little video profile of Wessel here...
Monday, 23 July 2007 at 09:06 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.