« Speaking of Portraits.... | Main | Cameras for Nate »

Wednesday, 10 April 2013

Comments

Sounds like a good show. I am museum deprived up in Juneau, AK, and have only wandered through the galleries at SFMOMA (very neat to see some on the biggies in the print flesh). I'm left wondering if museums are going to keep ending photography shows sometime before digital starts, kind of like that's when photography died. Do they even collect digital photography prints?

All sounds great; I wish I could see the show. But no inclusion of Pete Turner, a true innovator of color? Pete was a great promoter as well, running a gallery, The Space, beside his Carnegie Hall studio. An overview of color photography is incomplete without including PT.

So the contrarian in you just had to post your photos in monochrome.?

[Just a little joke from someone who loves B&W best.... --Mike]

I have the Eauclaire book which I always thought to be pretty inclusive in terms of photographers represented, but somewhat skimpy on examples from each and on text. Better in those respects but less inclusive, is the more recent, Starburst, Color Photography in America 1970-1980. I will definitely check out this new catalog, though.

Thanks,
Gary

And the Sony RX1, did you like that too? ;-)

[Oh, very much. Very very much. It's elegant, exquisitely made, effortless to use, just a joy. Ken offered to let me keep it for a while but I'm just too busy right now. But I'm hoping I might be able to induce him to repeat the offer later, in the summer. --Mike]

Two black and white pictures to cover a show named Color Rush? I guess that's why it's a "nearly" complete revolution.

[As is often the case in shows with lots of borrowed work from a multiplicity of sources, photography is not allowed inside the exhibition proper. --Mike

P.S. To continue my little joke I almost reproduced the book cover in black and white [g].]

1. Glad you are giving this terrific show some good international press.
2. Yes, the book is very very good.
3. Lisa Sutcliffe is a great addition to MAM.
4. Christine Tanaka is an excellent photographic subject.

Have to concur with Rob re: Pete Turner. He was certainly a big influence on many photographers -- probably a quarter of the pictures in a typical stock photo agency are Pete Turner-style knock-offs. I may even admit to having been influenced by him here and there in my own modest efforts...

Perhaps it's a matter of the exhibit's cut-off date of 1981 -- Pete didn't release his first monograph of "personal" work until after that, and maybe all his travel and commercial photography before that doesn't "count" in the art world. Too many album covers, not enough red ceilings. Too much Time/LIFE/LOOK, not enough Aperture.

Or maybe that's unfair to the curators, and it's just a matter of too much going on in 75 years to give wall space to everyone worthy.

"Lisa Sutcliffe replies: Pete Turner is included in Color Rush."

I'm delighted to hear that. I didn't see my old friend listed anywhere on MAM's site.

Thank you for your note.

Mike,
Good to hear you like this - it's on my list to see this month. I see in the brochure there's a talk on 4/25 about the color photos from the FSA, some of the back stories as it were. Definitely want to hear that.

Thanks for this - although I won't be able to visit, I like getting people's first hand impressions of seeing stuff in the flesh. There's no substitute for going and seeing a show!

One caveat - my alternative to seeing the show, the book, seems to have a very tight gutter, with text and image disappearing into the fold. Regardless of the quality of reproduction this would really prevent me from enjoying the book. Disappointing especially as the generous textual accompaniments would otherwise encourage reading. Of course I'd have to buy, or see the book to make a complete judgement, but on the basis of these pictures I probably wouldn't do so.

Thanks to the folk who mentioned Pete Turner - worth looking at irrespective of the historical connection - and a new one to me.

The two photos stand out as very well executed; indeed, the second (with Christine and Ken) looks like a professional promotional portrait. I only noticed that they are black and white when Gary and Jack pointed out your humour in using black and white to illustrate a colour exhibit. My first reaction was how they look elegant, clean and very pleasing to the eye. Well done!

[Thanks Rod! --Mike]

Hiya!

In a featured comment above, Geoff Wittig mentioned the camera obscure.

That reminded me, a couple of months ago I turned my living room into one for an afternoon. Although it wasn't all that successful, it was a lot of fun and quite easy to do (just needed some black plastic, masking tape and a knife). Just thought I'd mention it as something people might like to try. Keeping on topic, the image will be in colour :-)

Hi again.

Should have added, the only reason it "wasn't so successful" was because of the poor winter afternoon light.

Haha! I checked Amazon Japan for Color Rush yesterday and some were in stock. Went back to order today, and they are out.

But how nice to see color photography in the spotlight as opposed to 50 shades of grey photography. Oh, that's a bit snarky.

I like black and white when it is appropriate and I like color when it's appropriate and works. It's just that I git a little tarred of some of black and white is real photography stuff. (Proper 2013 "street photography" must be B&W 'cause that's what it used to be and is what most do now. Preferably in high contrast with lots of fake grain.) Drat! Snarky agin'.

The comments to this entry are closed.