May 16, 2007
It Takes Two To Make A Thing Go Right
Strawberries and chocolate. California and Schwarzenegger. Spiderman 3 and Xanax. All classic pairings that destiny and the Austin Museum of Art have been working to outstrip this week, with the presentation of two new exhibits: The Target Collection of American Photography: A Century in Pictures and 24 Summers at Barton Springs Pool: Photographs by Will van Overbeek. Both shows open this Saturday.
A Century in Pictures presents nearly ninety photographs taken by men and women who can properly be called American masters: Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, Edward Weston, Alfred Stieglitz, Richard Avedon ... the list goes on. In luminous black and white, their pictures document the 20th century, variously capturing the immigrant influx of the early 1900s, Depression-era travails, and triumphs of the American space program. They also easily trace the medium's stylistic movements; while the older photographs tend to speak candid "truth" about social and political realities, the newer prints lend more focus to highly staged environments. (To see continued evidence of this trend, just flip through any recent issue of Vogue.)
The large inkjet panels of 24 Summers at Barton Springs Pool: Photographs by Will van Overbeek offer fluid and colorful counterpoint. But just how did they arrive at AMoA? The story goes that Overbeek was commissioned by Rolling Stone magazine in 1983 to photograph the 68-degree wet heart of this city, and the short-term assignment turned into long-lived personal commitment. His donated works not only reflect the richness of human interaction and nature, but also celebrate the sweet hues that modern photography can lend to each. Swimmers, divers, lovers, water, sky—to paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson, they return to the Austin resident with an alienated majesty.
A Century in Pictures and 24 Summers at Barton Springs Pool
AMoA Downtown [map]
Gallery Tour: Saturday, May 19th, 3pm
Exhibit Dates: May 19 - August 12, 2007
$5 (members free)
Photo courtesy of AMoA. Arthur Fellig, Untitled (Kissing at the Movies), 1952. For Jae.
|
cool photo shows.
though i sometimes wonder about the merits of so many old photographs being mainly because they are in fact, old. The exact same photo today would be just another flickr post in time. Hence the need to style-it-up to get noticed.
You should really read up on the history of photography before saying something like that. It wasn't always as easy to take pictures as it is now, nor was it affordable to the general public to own a camera and set up a darkroom. I mean if you can't appreciate the process, at least understand that these are significant moments in American history (the Depression, for example) being visually represented, and not just some party at the Beauty Bar on a Tuesday night.
Oh I appreciate the process more than you know ;) But how much does the difficulty or chronological novelty of the process factor in to the worthiness of the work being displayed is what I am asking.
Take the picture posted on this very entry. It is sort of the older equivalent of a beauty bar picture. Though you're right, it would not be as easy to take, process etc. But how much should that matter?
Ah, so I notice that picture was taken by Arthur Fellig, who used a 4x5 speed graphic for most of his work. A staple camera in his era, in the 1950s, when photography was hardly new, so theres no technological novelty there. And teenage shennanigans weren't terribly new either (now, if it had been an interracial kiss...).
But, Arthur Fellig does have his own wikipedia entry. And theres the answer to my question.
So who knows. Perhaps some cell-phone picture taking beauty bar patron will get his own wikipedia entry and showing in 50 years.
I was thinking more of Lange and Steiglitz than Fellig.
you guys, i'm loving the mashup! commenters rule.
emily, i think we're kinda of the same mind on this topic.
but craig, your response is completely legitimate. when i chose that photo for the post, it wasn't cause it was the best or most worthy. it was just cause i was playing on the idea of pairs, the power of two, and the wisdom of Rob Base.
but as for your questions/comments, there is someone who can address them much better than i. anne tucker, the photographic curator at the houston museum of art -- she's the expert who singlehandedly built this collection -- will be speaking at AMoA on saturday at 3.
hit her with your best shot, and report back!
xo,
b
This site, http://www.amber-online.com/exhibitions/weegee-collection/exhibits/lovers says that photo was taken in 1943.
I like old photos a lot better than the digital photos of today. Just the talent that went into getting a good photo - the light, balance, lens speed, all that shit - makes me more appreciative because with digital photos it's so easy to correct mistakes.