Many (even most) photographic prints look best displayed under strong or generous lighting. It makes them technically better: brightness makes prints more vivid, improves their contrast, and makes colors richer and details easier to see. And not only is it more comfortable to look at well-lit objects, but bright light actually makes viewers' eyes "better," by making our pupils contract (like using a smaller aperture on a lens). Not for nothing is dim light associated with eyestrain and described by words like "murky," "flat," and "muted." Just look out your window in sunlight compared to the same scene at dusk and you'll see.
Yet in recent years, conservation concerns have encouraged museums to exhibit photographs in conditions dim enough to cause frustration among viewers. When seeing famous prints in the half-dark you might well wonder what the fuss is about them.
Here are a few ideas for displaying prints in museums with proper (strong) lighting:
• Cover each print with an opaque cloth curtain, with enough room on the top of the frame to get the cloth out of the way temporarily without making the viewer have to hold it up manually. One downside: you can't be "attracted" to pictures from far away and encounter them gradually as you approach them, which I like to do in museums. Also, not very practical for larger prints.
• With the ambient light low, allow viewers to press a button that would turn on a brighter light temporarily (sixty seconds, say), illuminating one art object at a time. Downside: doesn't help much in very crowded exhibits, where the bright lights might be on more or less continuously. Also, a room in which brighter lights were going on and off randomly here and there might not be conducive to contemplation of the artwork or to the general feeling of peacefulness and quietude that many people have come to expect in museums. (A reader suggested this but I haven't been able to locate where. Sorry not to give credit.)
• Conservation science solutions, like Ken T. mentioned. I'm not up on these, but surely advances in types of lighting coupled with types of protection could mitigate all or most of the damage potential of display light. We made it to the moon—maybe the challenge of optimally lighting a piece of paper in a room is similarly not beyond human ingenuity, science, and technology, and aspiration.
• Exhibitions of shorter duration. Downside: although it's variable, generally a great deal of time and effort goes into the preparation of shows, and keeping shows up for a reasonable amount of time both eases the burden of production and (theoretically at least) allows more people to get to the show and see it.
Here are a few more iconoclastic ideas:
• For contemporary acquisitions of new work, ask artists to provide two or more prints, one for exhibition and one for conservation. Downside: almost certainly not practical for exhibitions of work of mixed origin, since it would be unlikely that every work the curator wished to include would be available in this format. But it might work for acquisitions of works by single artists. Another downside is that it doubles the storage requirement for prints, and some museums are already pressed for adequate storage facilities.
• Develop a system whereby the "original" is mapped carefully and kept in informational (digital) form, and printed only temporarily for display. A big advantage is that it would make artworks accessible to more exhibitors, even simultaneously. Downside: removes the "aura" of an original art object that has a physical connection to the maker, and that ages in real time from the date of its creation.
• Separate the artifact from the experience, as John C. suggested. Display originals under subdued light and also carefully made copies under bright light. Downside: occupies up to twice as much gallery space. A solution to the downside just mentioned could be to only display a selection of originals, not every piece in the exhibit. That would give viewers both a reference and experience of the numinous presence of some of the original objects, while not requiring that very fragile pieces—or the originals of pieces on loan—be exposed to display conditions to their detriment. This would also allow curators to pick and choose the best or most instructive originals with which to augment the larger "experiential" exhibition.
(I personally like this solution best, for photographic prints at least. It's rather ironic that art world simultaneously insists that the idea of a work of art is most of what's important about it, while at the same time insisting on the primacy of the original artifact. A mix would suit me, as long as I had something to calibrate to. It's better than letting my experience of the artwork suffer because I wasn't allowed to see it as it was meant to be seen.)
• Display of digital originals on monitors. I haven't read up on this recently, but years ago I read that Bill and Melinda Gates have a system like this in "Xanadu 2.0," their 66,000-square-foot mansion in Medina, Washington. Downside: would you travel to see such an exhibit? Not sure I'd bother. Granted, it might be nicer than seeing something on your home monitor, but it seems to lack a sense of...occasion. Or something.
The middle way
The concept of reductio ad absurdum ("reduction to absurdity" or the appeal to extremes) can help us here. The extremes would be, on the one hand, to display art in such a way that the viewer's experience was optimized even if it wantonly damaged the artifact, and the other extreme would be to entomb the object permanently in conditions ideal for its longevity and never let a photon fall on it or anyone ever look at it under any circumstances. The first is somewhere on the scale between irresponsibility and vandalism, and the second is pointless and futile. So the "middle way" would be to take reasonable measures to protect and preserve the object, but also accept that slow deterioration and eventual decay are integral to the weakness that objects, like flesh, are heir to; that all things must one day pass.
The way I feel is that to take a print that was made to be displayed under bright light and ruin peoples' experience of it in order to enhance its longevity is inherently absurd. Prints aren't magic fetishes that work in the dark. Why preserve something meant to be enjoyed if it can never be enjoyed?
Mike
Original contents copyright 2019 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Here’s the situation
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
tex andrews: "So, I can speak to this a bit, since both my wife and I work in museums. My wife works as both a curator and a registrar (very unusual in the west), and I work in exhibitions doing the hanging and handling. We both work closely with conservators.
"One thing to understand is that a lot of this is institutionally driven, with overarching best practices coming from different groups like the AAM (American Alliance of Museums) and the various art conservation organizations, and, in the case of the Smithsonian, the governing body itself over all of the different museums in the Smithsonian system. Understand also that Collection Management departments, which may include conservation departments under them, are looking at ultimate preservation and protection. And then there is the moving target of advances in the field that drive new best practices.
"But I completely agree with you, Mike, and it's not just photographs suffering, either. With paintings not much can be done, but often the difference between the object being brightly lit (and probably how the first viewer, the artist, saw it) and the much dimmer museum lighting is stark.
"For photographs, however, exhibition copies can often be made, at least for contemporary work, and we do that—it's often an understanding reached with the artists/owners/galleries. But I am afraid there will be no solution for historical prints, if you want to see the original.
"Here's a great moment to reach out to a guest writer in the field to comment with an essay that you would run here, or an interview."
Rob Campbell: "You might want to take a second look at the idea that bright lighting is invariably the way to go. I remember being drawn to a set of photographs on the wall of a darkish restaurant; the low light gave a sense of depth to the prints, so much so that I left my seat to go and have a closer look. They were fashion shots, made by the son of the restaurateurs. The restaurant was in Mallorca, the owners English and the photos made in Manhattan. I think the restaurateurs and the restaurant are long gone, but I bet the prints are doing very nicely, thank you.
"On my own walls I have some prints with which I am very familiar, seeing them both in daylight and lowish electric light at night. In the lower illumination they take on a richer tonality. In both cases the images are black and white, mine off my late HP B9180, and the Manhattan ones wet prints. Yes, there is a critical level beyond which things get lost, but sometimes that helps accentuate the more important story they tell, and inject a little intrigue, mystery if you like."
MHMG: "One thing that amazes me about many museum exhibits is that the chosen gallery lighting design fails to make use of well known visual adaptation tricks which help humans see paintings, prints, and drawings better under low light levels. These tricks include:
1.) Setting the main gallery ambient room illumination to an even lower level than the print illumination ( e.g., 10 lux which is dim but enough for people to navigate easily in the space)
2.) Choosing lights with high CRI and optimal color temperature which is about 3500K for best color discrimination at typical museum illumination goals (e.g. 50 lux at the print surface)
3.) Painting the gallery walls a darker shade of gray rather than leaving it white or off-white.
4.) Spot lighting each print with focused lighting systems (e.g., projection lenses with masks and/or 'barn door' shades, etc.) that raises the print illumination to about 50–100 lux while maintaining the lower ambient levels on the surrounding walls, ceilings, floors and other surfaces in the room.
"Items 3 and 4 both trigger what color scientists call lateral adaptation in the human visual system. Darker surrounds thus help to lift the tonal values in a reflection print such that it appears brighter and with more tonal separation overall. Also note: lateral adaptation effects play an important role in getting a proper screen to print match using a color managed workflow."
Jim Meeks: "I've worked in museums for over 30 years and the one I'm at now has seen a reduction of staff nearing 50% in the last 10 years due to state budget cuts. Many of the suggestions are not practical from the standpoint of cost or manpower at ours and likely many institutions. We have been able to implement LED lighting in our galleries which benefits us and the works on display. LED emits little to no UV and IR, but you still need to consider the brightness of light shining on the item and the duration it will be display as that can still cause damage such as fading. UV glass or acrylic can also help and appropriate archival materials to house the item. One of the suggestions mentioned is something we are currently doing, which is making high-res scans of photos, documents and other works on paper and displaying those. The photos are typically enlarged and printed to a high quality on an Epson printer. I do like the idea of displaying an original along with a copy and may make that suggestion for a future exhibit."
Jim H.: "Mike, I bet you will get a chuckle out of my first reaction—this argument reminds me of the debate on whether vintage sports cars should be preserved and displayed or maintained and raced! However, I'm not a art conservationist but I do deal in light—fiber optics. When we went to the opening exhibition of the Annenberg Space for Photography, the first person I met was their lighting expert. His job was to create lighting of the right intensity and color to maximize the viewing of photographs. And it showed. But they do seem to create their own prints for every exhibition so the aim is viewing now.
"The Getty Museum photo exhibitions are often of period prints and the lighting is much less successful. Prints are often behind glass and reflections are problematic. Lighting is often very low and they do use shrouds sometimes.
"But about ten or fifteen years ago many museums started using more fiber optic lighting especially for small artifacts that are sensitive to light. Fiber optic lighting is cold—the source of the light is remote—and filtering can remove harmful UV (ultraviolet) and IR (infrared) light. However it might be problematic to get adequate illumination using fiber—it's better for small areas. LEDs are now being widely used for lighting, are highly efficient (more light than heat) and can be chosen to have a spectral output tuned to the human eye, correct LED choice and filtering can again remove harmful UV and IR light.
"We spend a lot of time at galleries and I must say the lighting is generally terrible. High intensity halogen lights are most common—they are black body radiators, creating tons of IR— ~85% of their output is IR—that's what does the heating— and only 1% is UV. I would think that a properly designed gallery could offer better viewing. White walls and light colored floor and ceiling. Use LEDs, have ambient light bright enough that spotlighting is minimized. Maybe if museums and galleries spent a few bucks on researching lighting...."
Ernie Van Veen: "I had two experiences that tried to address this problem recently. In a Chinese museum, with calligraphy artefacts nearly 2,000 years old, they used motion detection to turn on the brighter LED lighting inside the cabinets to allow a proper view. Also, recently in the National Library of Australia, a large exhibition of photographs by Peter Dombrovskis was printed entirely from digitised materials. (In fact, my wife was part of the team that performed the digitisation of the Dombrovskis collection of thousands of negatives.) This was a great method, and the exhibition was generously lit, but unfortunately, the curators decided to place these temporary photographs in frames under glass and then shine the lighting from exactly the right position to create a reflection on most of the works. Perhaps they were secretly recording a time lapse of the funny 'dances' people were performing as they squatted and twisted to see the photographs."
Andrew Molitor: "Museums have a somewhat unhealthy obsession with originals. They view their mission as acquiring, conserving, and from time to time letting people look at, original objects. John Berger in the 1960s ('50s?) was advocating the use of good quality reproductions in museums, as well as a host of other good ideas which would have recast the role of museums to align with what civilians think the role is: letting people look at these objects."
Julian: "In the maritime museum in Amsterdam, they have a collection of old maps that work on the 'allow viewers to press a button that would turn on a brighter light temporarily' system. This worked well in a space that was not busy."
K4kafka: "When I visited the Van Gogh Museum In Amsterdam in 1973 there was a room dedicated to his small sketches and ink drawings. When I returned in 2017, that display was gone. I was told the 100+ -year-old drawings were too fragile for public display,and were being preserved, locked away for private viewing by scholars."
Doug Thacker: "I recall seeing none other than Nelson Rockefeller on a talk show sometime in the late '70s. The reason he was on this show was to talk about a device he'd discovered, or maybe had developed, that could replicate an artwork to such a high degree of exactitude that it would be necessary to label it as a copy lest it be mistaken for the original. [I recall that too —MJ] He thought this device would enable everyone to afford great artworks and have them in their home, not just the wealthy, and he seemed to be really enthused. Not too much later, though, he died, and I don't recall ever hearing another word about it. Fast forward forty years. I still don't know what this technology was that he was so excited about, but by now it seems like something we should be able to do. So maybe that's the answer. Make a kind of 3D scan and display that.
"Apropos the topic, a number of years ago I printed a number of photos for a show and had them custom framed. It cost me a bloody fortune, way more than I could afford, but I wanted them shown right. A period of several weeks had passed between the printing and the framing. Once hung, I had carte blanche to light them as I preferred using halogen track lighting. I flooded the wall with light, and then fixed on each frame as many spot lights as I could. The result was brilliant! I'd never seen color prints look so vibrant. Why doesn't everybody do this? I wondered. But before too long, the glass in front of the prints started clouding up. It took some time to figure out what the problem was: the intense lighting was causing the prints to outgas, totally ruining my show (and my expensive framing job). That was when I found out: as light giveth, so it taketh away. "
Henk: "I was at the 2013 exhibition of Nick Brandt's 'Across the ravaged land' in the Young gallery in Brussels. Large prints, behind reflecting glass and small spotlights on them that reflected in the glass. A waste of my money and of the two-hour travel to Brussels. Later I bought the book On This Earth, A Shadow Falls. Pricey for my budget but now I can see what the prints should have looked like."
Speed: "The Cleveland Museum of Art has 6,031 photographs in its collection. Forty-three are on display. I would be happy to see high quality reproduction prints. Better than none."
Kenneth Tanaka: "as someone pretty close to being one of the villainous and anonymous 'powers that be' at one museum I would like to add just a few notes in the spirit of the post.
"Covering prints with curtains: It’s been tried and is sometimes done with non-photographic objects. But it’s really a pain to maintain and guard daily. In some relatively rare circumstances in a low-traffic show it can make sense. But generally, no, it’s not practical.
"Displaying facsimiles: That is sometimes done. There are, for example, certain types of 19th-century prints that are so fugitive that exposure to full normal room light would completely erase them in a relatively short time. The only way they can be shown is by using a reproduction. But for less sensitive prints it wouldn’t be deemed acceptable, for obvious reasons.
"Traffic modulation of lighting: Not practical for single pieces in a show, especially in higher-traffic museums. The gallery would look like a disco. Traffic modulation of lighting is, however, not uncommon in museums (of all types) with cavernous galleries that see little traffic. Some of the galleries at the Field Museum of Chicago are perfect examples.
Exhibitions of shorter duration: That is already standard practice for certain types of objects (or types of photos). The duration of most exhibitions is primarily dictated by factors outside of conservation. But it is not uncommon for certain objects (prints, in this case) to require early replacement in a long show due to light exposure budgets. It’s even more common for substitutions to be made between segments of a multi-city show.
"Fun Facts (to Know and tell):
"Sarah Wagner, a senior photograph conservator at the National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C. prepared a handy brief reference, Guidelines for Exhibition Light Levels for Photographic Materials.
"The Philadelphia Museum of Art has a nice overview page titled What effect does exposure to light have on a museum’s collections? outlining the key topics and measures the PMA takes.
"Once again, the Art Institute of Chicago currently has a full-blown exhibition on Conserving Photographs, in Gallery 10 until late April. It is extremely rare for a museum to have such a show, particularly one curated by a true luminary and leader in the field of photo conservation (Sylvie Pénichon).
"Finally, I think it’s important to come to terms with a few closing points: 1.) The primary mission of all major museums is to preserve their collections. Mike asked, earlier, who are museums saving this stuff for? The answer: indefinite future generations. 2.) Nearly all photographic prints fade. This is especially true of chemically produced photographic prints. Keeping them in cool total darkness merely slows the deterioration. Generally speaking, their longevity decreases by the length of time they are exposed to light, so ten days of very bright exposure might produce the equivalent of a year of much lower exposure. 3.) If you still cannot accept the compromise of seeing some photographic prints in dim light, then books might, indeed, be a better choice for you."
Mike replies: Thanks Ken. I might take issue with your characterization of "the primary mission" of museums—preserving collections is the business of archives, I'd say. Museums must perforce be archives in part, but their mission is much more dynamic. As I said, the reductio ad absurdum helps us here: taken to a logical conclusion, the mission of preserving artifacts for "indefinite future generations" would mandate never taking many items out of cold dark storage for any reason and never letting anyone look at them. I would merely ask, if that were paramount, then what would pay for the archiving functions of the institution? Never mind admissions fees, do you think public and private donations would continue to flow for "museums" that never held any exhibits or displays of any kind and never gave scholars access to anything? It hardly seems reasonable to characterize exhibition, education, and study as only secondary goals, when giving the public and scholars at least limited access to the institution's holdings is what keeps the whole ship afloat.
I think this establishes that what is necessary is a balance, and that is indeed how all museums operate, by finding a balance between sensible use and sensible preservation. The arguments are only in the details.
Joel Bartlett: "Sometimes the best place to see prints is not at a museum. In January, my wife and I visited Photography West in Carmel, CA and viewed a brightly-lit gallery of Ansel Adams prints. These were prints that were a gift from Adams to an assistant over a period of 20 years, They had never been exhibited and had been stored in perfect condition. I have seen Adams's work at SF MOMA and a number of West Coast galleries. This exhibit blew them away! Bright light and immaculate prints. This was like a 'barn find' in perfect condition would be for car fans. Wow!
"Keep looking at museums, dealers, auctions, etc. and you may be lucky enough to see something like this. Look for the Donohue Collection at this link for background."
Frank Gorga: "I just read an article in today's New York Times about a newly rediscovered painting by Rembrandt. Apropos to your post, this article contains the following passage, referring to the author's viewing of some of Rembrandt's paintings: 'When I was working on my book about the history of Amsterdam, Six invited me here and conducted a remarkable little demonstration. He turned off the lights and lit candles, and in an instant the paintings were transformed. They took on new energy; the golds and reds and flesh tones became warmer. The flicker of the flames seemed to breathe life into the two-dimensional figures. Six’s eyes gleamed as he saw that I had registered the point: These paintings were made for candlelight.' Interesting!"
Mike replies: Indeed. It does emphasize something very important, which is that the creators of work for display can adjust them for the lighting they'll be seen under, and, sometimes, that is an integral part of the art. Since my background was in custom printing, that's more or less where I'm coming from myself.
Thanks to all the commenters on this topic!
