Topic: Sally Mann at Photographers Place

[CarlRadford]

http://www.photonet.org.uk/index.php?pxid=964 a must for me for sure

[david b]

Ooh, I'll definitely have to see that.  Good excuse to go to London as well - haven't been for ages such are the magnetic charms of Manchester!

[Ed Wenn]

Yeah...lovely stuff. And it's on for long enough that I should be able to get there (even though it's only 6 miles from my house!!). I'm working in London until the end of June so will probably get to this early on in the run.

David B: let me know when you come down. It would be great to meet up if I'm around.

[original_ann]

ohhh wow, lucky duck!

[vicky slater]

This is the bestest news! Probly my favourite photographer.
And I've never been there before either but always meant to visit at some point.

Thanks for posting, Carl.

[sapata]

That's pretty cool !
I was just wondering if there'll be a preview for members...

[david b]

Ed: will do.  I have no idea yet when it's likely to be though...

[sapata]

http://www.photonet.org.uk/index.php?pxid=964 a must for me for sure

Hi Carl !
 
There's a great arcticle about Sally Mann on the today's Guardian magazine...
Just got the invitation for the preview...the exhibition is for sure unmissable !

[Ed Wenn]

I actually made it along to this exhibition a couple of weeks ago found myself torn between 2 reactions:

1. Absolutely blown away by the quality and inspirational quality of most of the work
2. Absolutely underwhelmed, confused and slightly pi**ed off by the rest of it.

...as I've mentioned to some of you in person, my mood wasn't improved by the Photogs' Gallery bookshop offering WAAAY fewer books and WAAAY more overpriced Lomo Soc tat (recon'd Olympus Trip 35 for £65 anyone...yeah sixty-freakin'-five quid).

I think I carried my bad mood on into the Sally Mann show. Anyway, I loved the early, 8x10 film stuff and the wet plate landscapes. The dead bodies series went over my head completely. I had had no reaction it at all other than, "why bother?". The final, close-up portraits of her kids (long-exposure, wet plate) - were what got me angry. It was probably the proximity of the Lomo Soc supermarket upstairs and the accompanying blurb:

Sally Mann often uses the back of her truck as a temporary darkroom when making work outside, which creates its own problems as dust and dirt is constantly attracted to the wet and sticky surfaces of the negative. The accidents all leave their marks, drips and stains across the prints, which is part of the appeal for Mann.

(From http://www.photonet.org.uk/index.php?pid=421)

....but all I could think of was that Carl's work never looks to be anywhere near this crappy and he's not even world famous (yet). I couldn't help feeling that for all her obvious talents (and let's be clear here that I'm a HUGE fan of her other work), she was slacking off with the close-up faces series and relying on process and 'look' to fill in for her less-than-great photos.

But then, Jacqui disagreed very strongly and said she liked the close-ups the best of the whole show, so that put me in my place.

Thoughts from others who have so far visited the show?

[david b]

Have you seen the 'What Remains' documentary, Ed?  I think it explains a lot of the impetus and motivation behind the death pictures and close-ups of her children ... it's certainly all coming from somewhere very real.  The problem for me is that - if you're viewing without knowing Mann's agenda - the images themselves don't really do much.  The children close-ups, for me, don't look visually interesting OR really convey the message Mann is intending ...

The body farm and Deep South images are a bit more successful, but again I think there's a conceptual issue - you sort of get that the damaged wet-plate look is supposed to be meshing with the subject matter which is all decay, passage of time, damaged landscapes, etc - and in some cases it works, but in many all you end up seeing are the process artefacts.  I actually got a sense from watching the documentary that she knows she is defined by that early work - all tonally smooth and luscious - and is going to the other extreme partly in rebellion and partly to try and come up with something that will hit as hard as the Immediate Family stuff.  You do get a feeling of artistic insecurity, and near desperation.

All that said, I'm still planning to get down to see the show later in the summer!

[Francois]

Here's the link to the What Remains documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khn5GN9cHWA

If you use the DownloadHelper add-on for Firefox, you can even save the parts and re-assemble them later.

[Ed Wenn]

Thanks guys. I'll definitely be checking out the film at some point. Thanks, also for the link, Francois.

David: I've long been interested in the discussion about whether art needs to be explained to be appreciated or whether it should to be able to stand on its own with no back story. I can never decide which way I swing on this one in general terms, but more and more I find myself leaning towards the latter & in this case Mann's later work failed to impress li'l ol' me...but I may change my mind again after I watch the documentary.

[CarlRadford]

The interesting thing is that Sally learnt the process from very experienced teachers - there is no reason that she produces plates that are anything but very competent apart from the reason that she chooses to do so.  I find this quite challenging too but try to understand what it is she is trying convey.  Robb Kendrick also chooses to manipulate his images by intentionally short pouring (not covering the whole plate in collodion) or some post manipulation (often deliberately making the plate look scratched etc) which again I found difficult to get my head around at first.

Why do people use cheap plastic cameras sub quality lenses etc etc when good one are cheap and affordable - because they choose too I suppose!

[david b]

It's certainly a deliberate choice, but on that YouTube clip you can hear her say that "it's unfortunate how many of my pictures do depend on some technical error" which is an interesting thing to admit to!

[Ed Wenn]

David/Carl, interesting indeed. Thanks for the insights.

Carl, I particularly liked the comment equating cheap cameras to sloppy wetplate work. Food for thought.

The thing that always angers me about this type of thing is the marketing blurb that goes along with it more than the artist's vision or process. On one level it's fine if Mann wants to make her wetplates look a bit crappy - I mean who am I to criticise her when she'd doing her thing - but my issue is that you'll never see that type of information included in the marketing. No mention of how wetplate work frequently looks amazing, but that Mann has chosen to go a different path with hers.

[CarlRadford]

Carl, I particularly liked the comment equating cheap cameras to sloppy wetplate work. Food for thought.

Sorry Ed I haven't made myself clear.  I do not equate plastic/toy cameras to sloppy work - I meant to make the link between that is often what people choose to use to express themselves when they have the means to use equipment that would do so without the obvious faults or some may say characteristics of such equipment.  I am very concerned that the images I make are not more about the process than the image I seek to create. Funnily enough I am just out to the darkroom to process two rolls of film put through a zero image pinhole which I made on Sunday.

That said sloppy work is just sloppy work.  Weak images and fuzzy ideas and all that...

[Andrea.]

Well, I actually got to this the other day - had to go to a wedding in Sunningdale [why is there no statue to Mrs Snell there I wonder??] and escaped to the P.G one day. Lovely old work - the kids etc, very iffy new Collodion work - the so-called large "Silver prints" of what I presumed were ambrotype negs looked like industrial prints - all flat and uninspiring. I asked someone if they were Silver prints and they said if it says so they were but was not convinced.
On the up-side, the new cafe is excellent, the bookshop terrible - too many things to buy !!!!

Also saw an interesting photo exhibition at the oxo building - or nearby of the results of cluster bombs! There was also a Arbus exhibition at The Bank of America building near Paternoster Sq - but they wouldn't let me in to see it - one has to make an appointment and even though I said I was visiting from the Outer Hebrides -they didn't seem to know where that was - I didn't get in.

[euge...]

Thanks guys. I'll definitely be checking out the film at some point. Thanks, also for the link, Francois.

David: I've long been interested in the discussion about whether art needs to be explained to be appreciated or whether it should to be able to stand on its own with no back story. .

I tend to agree with the idea that an image/series of images ought to stand on their own and everything else is just gravy.But I can appreciate that a backstory can slingshot you over initial reservations.For what its worth heres Jeff Curtos view. http://www.cameraposition.com/?p=8

[vicky slater]

Well I managed a trip up today to see this, and though it could be that my expectations were way too high, I came away a little flat.
It wasn't the quality that let me down, I love the messiness of her wet plates, but I think seeing it all so big made it lose it's intimacy, I just couldn't connect with them in the same way as I do in the books.
The large close up faces of her children, which I have always loved, just seemed flat, no feeling of the depth and texture which I've always credited them with.
I know I sound really negative but the standouts for me were 'the scarred tree' and 'the perfect tomato'..as well as several others of her children. And the book shop was packed which made it hard to enjoy (did buy a pack of silver shade 600 though)....I am really glad I went, I just don't think it showed them off as well as it could have done, that's all.

Oh also went to see the summer exhibition, that was great, a really eclectic mix :)

[vicky slater]

Also I don't see many exhibitions so don't have alot to compare it with...I must try and do more, they really help clarify how you do and don't want to do things.

[david b]

I'm finally going to see this on Wednesday - any other FWers going to be around in the capitol?

[Ken B: eyes, I just do eyes.]

I'm finally going to see this on Wednesday - any other FWers going to be around in the capitol?

What time?

[david b]

I'm not sure ... and it's also looking like I won't have much time when I do get there.  So probably best I just try to see the show and not arrange anything else!

[Ken B: eyes, I just do eyes.]

I'm not sure ... and it's also looking like I won't have much time when I do get there.  So probably best I just try to see the show and not arrange anything else!

The best I could do is nick off from work a bit early and get there for about 5.00-5.10pm

So pm me if you want my number and we can try and hook up.

If we can't thats fine to, there will be other opportunities

cheers

[Karl]

I went a few weeks ago and was very excited by the prospect, even though I'd read that this exhibition is an edited down version of the European tour (worried about Daily Mail Britain?), without some of the more 'controversial' family prints.

I'd agree with the comments about the ground floor collodion prints - the actual prints were a bit soul-less and looked like cheap repros.

The family images are jaw-droppingly lovely as are the southern landscapes. Wounded Tree is such a stunning image.

On a shopping note, the postcard selection at PG is really good. I'm making my own personal photobook of images that I like and they had some Saul Leiter cards which I didn't expect to find anywhere! A plug for Saul Leiter - he's fab, check him out.

[david b]

Having now seen the show I can say that I agree with my own upthread comments!  Also with most of the last few assessments - particularly about the presentation of the collodion work.  They really did look flat and uninspiring, actually much worse than the repros in the books... they reminded me of those rubbishy canvas photo prints that high street shops do now.  I also think it would have made much more sense for the prints to be 1:1 with the original plates - blowing them up so much really lost any feeling of intimacy, and also moved away from the avowed point of producing these damaged physical records, as discussed upthread.

The Immediate Family stuff was perfectly considered and presented - just a shame there wasn't more of it.  And it was funny listening to people talking in that room and agreeing with everything we've been saying...

[Late Developer]

As someone who works in (the city of) London, I must find time to get over to the West End to see this exhibition. I'm not overly familiar with all her work but, as her name seems synonymous with controversy, I wonder whether she's a bit of a drama queen? Talented, for sure, but surely she must know what reaction her work will receive? Is that why she does it; to provoke a strong reaction?

Incidentally, the Photographer's Gallery is closing in the Autumn for a refurbishment and re-opening later next year. I can't remember the dates but I got an e-mail about it last week.

The earlier comments about deliberately "scuffing up" images made me smile. Before I got back (heavily) into film usage, I bought a post processing tool called Silver Efex Pro (SEP). For those unfamiliar, this is a film simulation tool that turns a digital image into something that broadly resembles a film print. It's good fun to use and, so long as you're not too picky, the results are okay.

However, a number of friends of mine have asked, why would someone want to "ruin" a perfectly good digital colour image by turning it into a mono, film simulation? The only answer I can come up with is because I like mono film more than digital. Now that I have the film cameras I want, I seldom use SEP anymore.

However, isn't it fascinating how we believe our photos should look compare to how other people would have them? Seldom do I see a colour image that I think wouldn't look better as a black and white.

[vicky slater]

Late Developer, I really don't believe Mann is in any way a drama queen nor do I think that she takes pictures to get a reaction, she takes the pictures she wants to make, in the way she wants to make them.
It's generally a record and exploration of what is close to her, and what's close to all of us, family, environment and mortality....I think we all bring our own experiences to art and sometimes we see what we're looking for.

[Late Developer]

@ Vicky Slater

As I said, I don't really know much about her so, the other evening, I watched a You Tube recording of an interview she gave. She seems very sincere and committed to the projects she pursues, so fair play to the lady.

Given the "attacks" on her work that it appears she's had to endure, a lesser person would have probably buckled.

I'll definitely have to go over to Ramillies Street to see the exhibition before the gallery closes for refurbishment in September....

[Heather]

Just want to point out the rumours of the gallery's death are slightly exaggerated, apparently the photographers' gallery will still be using spaces around london for events and projects (or at least their webpage suggests this) and there will still be a bookshop open (somewhere?) Phew!

http://www.photonet.org.uk/index.php?pid=411

As an aside, I could probably take loads of awesome macros on my 35mm film SLR as I have a decent macro lens for it but I don't because I like my 4x5 camera and the way of shooting for both is different so produces a different result for me. I certainly have the means to and have done enlarged negatives without major problems but there's a crispness and unique look to using the big camera over the little camera.

Different tools to do the job in the end or I do prefer the analogy of oils to watercolours or oils to acrylics in painting terms. Actually, I suppose some watercolourists will be seen as just starting out and are probably frequently asked if they have tried acrylic or oils. Similar to how us film users are somehow seen as plebs and luddites.

Oh erm I've gone wildly offtopic. I liked the show. It was pretty. I surprisingly liked the tree/landscape ones. I didn't like the kiddie pics but that's because I'm a cold hearted somethingorother that isn't into the whole aw cute kids/babies scene The close-up ones were okay but I didn't find them wildly inspiring. Body farm ones i didn't find wildly interesting as I had hoped - Andres Serrano's morgue photos seemed more interesting to me (though that was really many many years ago now since that was at the Barbican).

[SuziLivingstone]

I loved it, and I really love her What Remains work the most..  not keen on the new Photographers Gallery building though, feels very squishy in there. Have to agree bookshop prices bit steep, I can get the books I want on amazon much cheaper.. and now thoroughly ticked off with them that I have to return a Holga lens.. still it means I can have another look at the Sally Mann exhibition I guess...

[david b]

..  not keen on the new Photographers Gallery building though, feels very squishy in there.

They're closing soon so that their new location can be totally rebuilt.  I agree it's a bit ropey in its current state, and it would have been better if they could have remained in their old Great Newport St premises until the new building was ready, but it should be really great in a year or so!

[SuziLivingstone]

They're closing soon so that their new location can be totally rebuilt.  I agree it's a bit ropey in its current state, and it would have been better if they could have remained in their old Great Newport St premises until the new building was ready, but it should be really great in a year or so!
[/quote]

Yeah just seen on their website, I loved Great Newport Street..