I just came from SF MOMA and saw the amazing exhibit of Robert Frank's
"The Americans". Powerful!!! included were also images of his trip to Peru
and of 1950's in England. On another floor they had an exhibit of Ansel
Adams images and of Georgia O'keefe paintings. I was surprised how
amazing and darker than expected many of the images of Ansel Adams
were. On the other hand, I did not care at all for Georgia's paintings.
I saw the same exhibit Kaden... really inspiring stuff. I especially loved Frank's shot of his family in the car on that long road at sunset... awesome. I even bought one of the Ansel Adams/Georgia O'Keefe books as well so that I could see the similarities in more detail.
-Rich
Kaden K. wrote: ...
I just came from SF MOMA and saw the amazing exhibit of Robert Frank's
"The Americans". Powerful!!! included were also images of his trip to Peru
and of 1950's in England. On another floor they had an exhibit of Ansel
Adams images and of Georgia O'keefe paintings. I was surprised how
amazing and darker than expected many of the images of Ansel Adams
were. On the other hand, I did not care at all for Georgia's paintings.
Rich indeed I saw that image too. I was very taken by how powerful these images
were v.s. just knowing them from a book. My girlfriend saw the exhibit 2xs and she
seldom is impressed with images. Well, I liked a lot the first image in London with
fog and bankers walking a valley of buildings but there were so many profound and
compelling compositions.
My fave part of the exhibit was the contact sheets. Wow!!! There it was the
awesome, the good, the OK and the ugly for the whole world to see. On average
4/5 master images per contact sheet. That's phenomenal. Also one could see the
mental/visual choices as he shot 2/3/4 images of the same scene as it evolved.
Way cool!
I had been told also by a few friends who teach photography and consider Robert
Frank a photographic genius that his lab work unfortunately was not at the same
level of his compositions. Since I saw Ansel's exhibit first, I could see why anyone
could think that.
Auntipode, although I can appreciate likes and dislikes (my own included) O'keefe
paintings are very specialized (flowers) with a pervasive western flavor and intense
colors. Mine isn't a dislike at large or due to acclaim or lack thereof. Irrespective
the value of art is not dependent on me liking it or feeling personally compelled by
it, thank God...
I was also soooo intrigued by the contact sheets. I guess any photographer would be interested to see the editing process of a master like Robert Frank, but I was also interested in his bracketing process. You could see from the contact sheets how he bracketed for composition and exposure... Was really cool to see. I often think I'm being a bit exploitative of the digital medium when I will take 3-4 shots of the same thing with slightly different compositions or DOF... It was somewhat redeeming to see that Robert Frank does the same thing.
Talking about this has me thinking I should go back again next week... I wonder if MOMA has a frequent viewer program!
Kaden K. wrote:
Auntipode, although I can appreciate likes and dislikes (my own included) O'keefe
paintings are very specialized (flowers) with a pervasive western flavor and intense
colors. Mine isn't a dislike at large or due to acclaim or lack thereof. Irrespective
the value of art is not dependent on me liking it or feeling personally compelled by
it, thank God...
Exactly my point. If you'll recall our previous discussion about a certain famous photographer who had some images that left me cold.
...yeah some tear and wear. 