Eve after the Fall

0eveafterfall

I am home now, but this morning I went to The Art Institute of Chicago museum. I only had 90 min until I needed to leave for the airport, so it was a quick visit. I knew I had to see Richter. That was where I went first.

I took many photos, of course, and I will put them up tomorrow. I wish I would have had more time to photograph sculptures. I could have easily spent a few hours just doing that.

I also wandered around the photography area for twenty minutes or so. They had some really good stuff. It was interesting to see so many printed that I have only viewed digitally. Some looked much better printed. William Klein, for example–his prints jump off the wall. They are gripping, tragic, beautiful. Ansel Adams was not as impressive, but maybe it was just that photo. I had never seen it. It was kind of like, meh. Cindy Sherman’s prints were okay. One was not as good, the other I had never seen. Nan Goldin’s photo was better printed. Robert Frank’s print was one of my favorites. Weegee had a great print, but it was one of his more conventional images. Same goes for Diane Arbus. I also saw the famous, “Steerage,” by Stieglitz. That was really neat to see. It has aged, but still beautiful. I also saw Edward Weston, Walker Evans, Bresson, Man Ray, Dorothea Lange, Eggleston …

Oh yeah, the statue above is Rodin, Eve after the Fall. It is not a very big statue. Maybe … I dunno, lol. It was on a pedestal that was much bigger than it. Beautiful.

18 thoughts on “Eve after the Fall

  1. I should know Klein but somehow I didn’t, so I’ve gone and looked, and I’m sure I’ve seen his work many times but didn’t KNOW who he was, so thank you for that. Personally I’m not surprised at having a “meh” reaction to an Ansel Adams print, as he always left me cold. (I’m light years behind him, sure, but that’s my feeling & opinion). There’s such a difference between seeing an image on the monitor , with all that light coming through it from behind, and seeing a print on paper. I’d be interested to hear your more of thoughts on that, & I look forward to seeing what you post on the Art Institute visit.

    • Hey there! Yeah, there is a big difference between a print and the monitor. I know just from printing my own stuff. That is why I have to do proofs. Sometimes an image looks exactly the same, but many times it needs a little tweaking. And there is just a different “feel” to it as a physical object. But I would not say one is any less of a photographer if their digital image does not come out perfectly as a print because I sort of feel like the best medium for digital photography is to view the image digitally! It’s pixels, after all. Film is different. The medium for film was intended to be paper, not a computer screen. So I do not necessarily fault the photographer in either case. I know my scans of prints from the darkroom look different on a monitor. They usually look worse, though. LOL. But I have a crap scanner. And there is context to consider as well. Usually when I am viewing images online they are in groups, which can change how you view them too.

      • Interesting – I like the idea that film was intended for paper prints and pixels may be better seen electronically. For me, there’s also the aspect of history – I always loved the slide shows we had when I was a kid – my father took lots of pictures and it was a pleasure seeing them glowing on the screen, in the darkened living room. But I love the physicality of objects too. Like you said, context! If one tried to control it all one would go mad.

      • Haha! I may already be a bit mad, lol. 😉 Yeah, context is so important. I post a lot of “series” and even though people have their favorites within a series, to me, they rely upon each other, if that makes sense.

  2. I think the hardest thing is to mix one media with another; scan a print and work like hell trying to making it look good on the screen. I almost give up. A negative can be interpreted in so many different ways Chemical/Paper (Maybe an age thing 🙂 ) but there is a crossover – it just takes more work: for me anyway.
    I think you were a little hard on Ansel, yes he has become rather passé, but there are many reprints of his work and they seldom match the original.
    Now Rodin – his work can be so beautifully sensual.

    David.

    • Hi David, you make a very good point about a negative having multiple interpretations. I think some go too far in reproducing the images in a digital format–to the point where it nearly becomes a different image altogether. And I agree, too, the papers and chemicals will give very different results as well.

      The Adams print was a bit off character of his normal style. It was low-key, for one. Wish I could remember the name of it, but I cannot, and it was the one place in the museum where I was not allowed to take photographs (the irony!) It was part of the Robert A Taub collection, which also included most of the names I mentioned, and several others. A very solid collection.

Discuss

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s