Reader JH wrote this as a comment yesterday. Thanks to him for permission to make it into its own post. —Ed.
Guest post by JH
Every Saturday my wife and I visit galleries around Los Angeles and occasionally go to museums on Sundays. We started going to galleries in the Village in New York City more than 50 years ago on our first dates. Neither of us are artists, although I've been known to take competent photos and have had many published in magazines and books, mostly from my auto racing collection.
We just like to look at art, any kind of art, and LA is the place to be today. There are more than 100 galleries listed in the spreadsheet my wife uses to keep up with the visits. We know many of the gallery owners, and get email newsletters from most of them. New galleries are opening monthly; many are branches of New York City or foreign galleries that want to be part of one of the hottest, if not the hottest, art scenes in the world.
We're not artists, but we like art, any kind of art. I take photos of what we like with my iPhone 14 and put them into a file for our Mac screensavers. We are not critics in the classical sense, but we do judge art by our tastes. We see thousands of examples of art each year and that leads me to an interesting observation:
Galleries rarely show photographs.
When they do, they are often the opposite of what most photographers call art photography. Forget beautiful landscapes, sharp images of wild animals, architecture or even street photography. Most of what makes it into a gallery is abstract, artfully out of focus, with bad exposure and oversaturated color, or is manipulated (both analog or digital) or built into a collage with other media. We've seen photos printed on metal, glass, fabric, and mural material plastered on a wall. Some of it is really interesting as art, but not quite what most photographers would expect.
There are two galleries in LA that show photography—Fahey Klein on La Brea downtown, and Peter Fetterman at Bergamont Station in Santa Monica. Both are worth visiting if you are in LA but their shows are like the Getty's: historical, not contemporary.
The Getty museum has the most wonderful photographic exhibits, but mostly of historical figures and surveys; I can't remember a living photographer getting into one of their exhibits. But the stuff from the 19th century has been wonderful, as has some of the work from 30+ years ago. I guess, like painters, that you need to be dead for a while to get recognition.
The absolute highest quality exhibits of photography I have seen were at the Annenberg Space For Photography, which closed during the pandemic—permanently. We never missed a show. At the first show I talked to a staff member who was doing some final adjustments to lighting. He turned out to be the resident color specialist, creating lighting that showed the true colors and did not reflect into your eyes. Visiting the Annenberg was like walking through a copy of LIFE magazine. Along with every photo was a story about the subject and the photographer—always interesting, as were the short documentaries they showed in the center of the Space, interviewing photographers about their work and the subjects. We miss the Annenberg like we miss LIFE and Look! But it was not "art," it was eye candy most of the time.
Maybe online is where contemporary photography resides today, right or wrong.
JH
Thanks to JH. You can see his earlier comment—>post here. I also published his comment under the "Antidote" post.
Original contents copyright 2023 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
What a great article. Very enlightening.
Posted by: Kye Wood | Sunday, 03 September 2023 at 07:47 PM
FYI, Fahey-Kline exhibits contemporary photography on a regular basis. It is near West Hollywood,not “Downtown “…
Posted by: K4kafka | Sunday, 03 September 2023 at 09:56 PM
I don't do IG, and so much of the stuff found elsewhere on the internets is mediocre at best. Some of the best work can be found on sites featuring and previewing photobooks.
In San Francisco, Pier 24 was the premier photography exhibition showcase, after repairing the rotting pier it's situated on before it collapsed into the bay, the city showed it gratitude by tripling its rent- it closes permanently on 7/25.
Posted by: Stan B. | Sunday, 03 September 2023 at 11:13 PM
JH, I agree that most of the "conceptual" modern "photography" we're likely to see, is crap. That, however, is where things are today. We aficionados of classic photography have been passed by. I doubt the galleries would show the conceptual stuff if it weren't popular and profitable. Thanks, BTY, for the suggestions of venues to see in LA.
Posted by: Gary | Monday, 04 September 2023 at 03:27 AM
Since JH is based in LA I’ll assume he’s familiar with the work of James Turrell, but for any TOP readers who aren’t I highly recommend a visit to one of his “skyspaces”, indoor/outdoor art installations that can be found in many parts of the world. Turrell’s work is all about light and how we perceive it and it’s made me think differently about the color of the sky. I found the sunrise/sunset viewings especially moving.
Posted by: Richard T | Monday, 04 September 2023 at 08:28 AM
I find myself in Carmel, CA each year at least once and I meander through the many galleries there each time - mostly just the galleries that feature photography.
The Weston Gallery is my favorite. Beautiful space and the perfect mixture of my favorite types of photography, mostly bw but some color. Unfortunately since the pandemic it is only open by appointment - that may have changed since my last visit.
One of my takeaways from looking through many of the other galleries is my frustration, in a way, with modern color. The color prints that you do find seem to almost all be on metal or acrylic, super gloss - which I think CAN be a great look. But everything is SUPER-vibrant, SUPER-saturated, SUPER-sharpened. I admit the attractiveness of these prints - they ATTRACT the viewer and they pop. But as a photographer who prefers things to more closely match reality, it's sort of a turnoff. It actually is one of the things that has lead me to be more interested in bw and in film. A reaction to that fake color I guess.
Posted by: JOHN B GILLOOLY | Monday, 04 September 2023 at 11:02 AM
"Some of the best work can be found on sites featuring and previewing photobooks."
Suggestions please.
Posted by: louis mccullagh | Monday, 04 September 2023 at 01:03 PM
The Getty just took down a photo exhibit of Tim Walker (born 1970 and undead). The subsequently dead Manuel Alvarez Bravo was the first living photographer to be granted the Getty varsity letter back in 1992.
Nice essay describing and even nicer personal ceremony.
Posted by: Calvin Amari | Monday, 04 September 2023 at 01:16 PM
For Los Angeles photography the closure of the Annenberg Space was a massive loss. The quality of the photographs and the installations were always top class.
Like JH, I would prefer to see more living photographers exhibited but we did have a brilliant Josef Koudelka show at the Getty in 2015.
Posted by: George Andros | Monday, 04 September 2023 at 01:34 PM
I lived in Toronto and belonged to an artist run photography centre, which has both a gallery space and darkrooms/studio spaces. A majority of the work exhibited are from MFA students and graduates- you could usually tell as it was 'conceptual' work. The gallery and artist relied on grants from Canada Arts Council to function. It seems to me that in order receive a grant, the work typically needs to express political or social issues such as gender inequality, gender issues or multiculturalism. This is all good. However, when the social and political issues take front seat over an aesthetic in the work, then things go wrong. I have been thinking for awhile that much of the arts have been highjacked by academia. I often find that I have to read the artist description before I can get anything out the work. A piece of art should be able to be enjoyed by its aesthetic alone; and then after the initial attraction, reading the description can add to the experience. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. Often, the exhibits seemed almost anti-aesthetic. One of the last exhibits I saw at the photography centre included a hanging neon form with piles of rubble on the floor and holes in the gallery walls. I didn't even bother reading the description.
Posted by: David Drake | Monday, 04 September 2023 at 01:41 PM
Make that 7/24!
Posted by: Stan B. | Monday, 04 September 2023 at 02:10 PM
Things seem to be a little different here, on the other side of the pond. I am going to London in a few days time to see as many of the seven photographic exhibitions that I have on my list as I can fit in. The amateur exhibition world is also healthy. There are the Midland Mono, the Smethwick International Salon and the Midland Salon, and that's just in my locality.
Posted by: Bob Johnston | Monday, 04 September 2023 at 03:53 PM
Also in L.A., just “off the top of my head”:
Rose Gallery, also in the Santa Monica Bergamot Station art gallery complex - they downsized from a larger space but still exhibit photography. Other galleries there sometimes do. I just make the rounds there occasionally and see what else I can find.
Leica Gallery LA on Beverly Blvd. The second floor of the Leica Store is all exhibit space for photo shows. Soon an exhibit of still photos by Academy Award winning cinematographer Roger Deakins.
The Los Angeles County Art Museum sometimes has photo exhibits. A few years ago, pre pandemic, they had a very nice show of William Eggleston’s photos, who is still alive, as far as I know.
Posted by: Bob Casner | Monday, 04 September 2023 at 04:55 PM