I agree; nothing like seeing a master's prints in person. Even the
best book reproduction can't get 'it'. Of course screen repro is a
joke even on the best systems.
I had the opposite experience when viewing and Adams print years ago
at The Art Institute of Chicago. They had a special showing of AA's
work. The first image displayed at the entrance was a huge print of
his best know work, 'Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, 1941'. Despite
seeing it hundreds of times in various media, it was like I was seeing
it for the first time. The person I was with went halfway through the
rest of the exhibit before circling around to find me still transfixed
by 'Moonrise'.
The print itself was exquisite, but what I really remember is an
emotional impact that is difficult to describe. Suffice to say I'd
suggest everyone make the effort to go to shows where actual prints
are displayed.
ScottGee1
On 10/10/05, Bob Whitmire <bwhitmire@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Went to the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston this weekend to see the Ansel
> Adams exhibit. It's nice to occasionally dip ones feet into the cool waters
> of the masters.
>
> For what it's worth, the biggest surprise of the exhibit was a photo Adams
> took in 1944 when he partnered up with Dorthea Lange to photograph the
> results of a crumbling war industry in the SF Bay area. There's a shot he
> took with Lange's camera, of three kids, that just freaking took my breath
> away. First time I'd seen this one. Not a landscape to be seen. Nothing
> approaching f64. Hand-held on a 35mm piece of film. Old Ansel had the eye,
> there's no doubt about it.
>
> --Bob
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|