Topic: Not Great, But Really Inspiring....Huh?!

[Ed Wenn]

I went to see "The Radical Eye" exhibition at the Tate Modern this weekend and left the gallery feeling something I'd not taken away from any other photo show I've attended. Of the 150 pieces on display, I loved around 30 of them. The rest left me cold, or I just plain didn't like....and yet, I'm not sure I've felt more inspired by any other show I've been to. Weird huh?

Maybe it's just that I've moved away from photography in recent years and this show was a reminder of how amazing the form is...or maybe it's something different, something relating to the freedom of that era of photography? Whatever it was, I was buzzing when I left.

http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/radical-eye-modernist-photography-sir-elton-john-collection

[astrobeck]

I'm really happy to hear you enjoyed it! I am buzzed to go, and hope it travels someplace near in the future.

Also, we would love to have you post more around here, it's has been some time, but understand having youngsters in the house is quite time consuming!
All is good!
Thanks!
 

[Ed Wenn]

Sir 'Elt' must have spent millions on the collection. There are around 150 photos on display, but he has many more at home in Atlanta. There's a decent documentary on the Tate web site where you see the collection in situ at his house. It's insane. Literally every piece of wall space is taken over with photographs.

The video is also on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/e2H4sAQocCM

https://www.youtube.com/embed/e2H4sAQocCM

[Francois]

He did spend millions on it. But we can't say he can't afford it.
The picture you posted on top was the first he acquired for something like 280,000$
He says his entourage thought he had gone cuckoo! But that's obviously not the case.

I'm glad you enjoyed the show and can definitely see why some pictures are so good.

You should really get back into the photo thing. I think we're both too harsh on ourselves when we assess our stuff. I too am guilty of not photographing as much this year. With my bad shoulder, lets just say moral was not as it should be... But while doing the last collab I got to remember how good it feels to be with the camera in front of your eye. And when I say the film, it was really a relief as I thought I had completely lost the skill... and I discovered it wasn't the case.

[Ed Wenn]

Particularly enjoyable at the exhibition were:

• The fact that you could get right up close to the images and study the heck out of the prints.
• That Amy and I walked around at least two of the rooms the 'wrong' way. We got some testy looks, but we were just paying homage to the Surrealist art on the walls....or something 

[Francois]

Nah... I think this was more of a Dada performance

[Nigel]

I saw the exhibition on Saturday and came away with almost the same view as Ed. I loved some of the portraits and some of the more abstract work, but some of it also left me cold. I'm a big Irving Penn fan and he has a few of his studio portraits I'd not seen. There's a copy of 'The Migrant Mother' which I hadn't seen up close before, so that was interesting. It was really crowded when I was there so I'd like to go back at some point, it's on till March so there's plenty of time.

The other thing I liked were some really tiny prints, they looked they could have been some 120 contact prints. As someone without a darkroom I've seen an ad recently for some new sunpaper (is that what it's called?) anyway it inspired me to have a go.

[Late Developer]

I'm hoping that Lara and I will be able to get there in the next weekend or two.  The thing I'm looking forward to is the diversity.  Most exhibitions tend to be focused on one (sometimes two - as with Daido Moriyama and William Klein a couple of years ago) photographers.  That's great if you're particular fans of that (or those) photographer(s) or want to see how their style changed / evolved. 

This one is a personal collection and represents many, many photographers who took photos over a long period of time.  I'm under no illusions that I'll like everything on display and £16.50 (about $19) each isn't an insignificant sum for a ticket - but when are we going to see another collection like it again? 

[Nigel]

£16.50 (about $19) each isn't an insignificant sum for a ticket - but when are we going to see another collection like it again?

We've been members of the Tate for a few years which gets us into the exhibitions 'free'. We certainly get good value out of it - I'm a real fan of C20 art. The good thing about it is if it's a large exhibition you're free to see half and go back to see the rest.

[Late Developer]

£16.50 (about $19) each isn't an insignificant sum for a ticket - but when are we going to see another collection like it again?

We've been members of the Tate for a few years which gets us into the exhibitions 'free'. We certainly get good value out of it - I'm a real fan of C20 art. The good thing about it is if it's a large exhibition you're free to see half and go back to see the rest.

Nigel, I was looking at membership options when I was on the Tate Modern site the other evening and considering if it was a viable option.  They do have a few good photo exhibitions per year and I like some, but not a lot, of modern art.  However, although I've tried to free my mind to "get" the concept behind some of the more abstract pieces of work I've seen, I just don't seem to be able to do so.

Did you see the programme the other night about the Turner Prize?  I couldn't believe that some of the stuff that's been nominated (and even went on to win it) down the years was worthy of consideration.  I'm clearly in the wrong game.  Where's there a dirty scruffy bed, half a pickled shark or a pile of bricks when I need one.....

[Francois]

The other thing I liked were some really tiny prints, they looked they could have been some 120 contact prints. As someone without a darkroom I've seen an add recently for some new sunpaper (is that what it's called?) anyway it inspired me to have a go.

Sunprint paper can be a really nice and simple way to make tiny prints. I tried it and thought it was a nice product. The only thing I find is that the paper is a bit thin for my taste.
But you might want to consider a cyanotype kit and some nice thick watercolor paper. No darkroom needed here. Just make sure you don't work under a fluorescent light.

LD: there's a bit of a funny story about the shark in the tank. The shark everybody sees is not the original. In the original version the artist didn't calculate properly the amount of formaldehyde needed to preserve the shark. While it was on display, people started to notice it was loosing chunks that were settling at the bottom of the tank. The artist got called in a hurry to redo the exhibit. They had to drain the toxic liquid, get rid of a now toxic shark, find a new shark and so on.

[Ed Wenn]

Late Developer: Paul, I went to see the Turner Prize finalists' exhibition recently too. One of the artists used photographs as part of her submission (close ups of hands holding objects). Totally mental. What will they think of next? 

Nigel: We're Tate members too. I think we've already got our money's worth after going to three shows. Also Sunprint paper; I'm a big fan and have made some decent prints using digital negatives made from analogue prints/negs and then turned them into Sunprints. I've had less success with contacting printing standard negs, but either way it's a lot of fun.


Sunny Side Up by Ed Wenn, on Flickr

"This image was originally captured on Polacolor 125i instant film with my 5x4Tachihara field camera. I knocked up a digi neg from it. The right hand print was chronically underexposed at 45 mins. The print on the left fared much better at approx 3 hours in very dull daylight. I stained the underexposed print in coffee which dulls the blue to a darker bluish grey. I'll do the same with the better print at some point. Each print is about 10x8 and they both look pretty darn cool in the flesh." (from an old Flickr post)

[Nigel]

Thanks Ed. You've given me another thing to research - making digital negatives!

I do like the idea of the sun prints. I remember seeing an ad, I'm sure it was claiming the process had been improved but I can't remember where I saw it. I'll do a bit of googling at the weekend.

I guess I could make contact prints without an enlarger? Or am I talking nonsense?

[Francois]

Definitely. For contact prints all you need is a low wattage bulb, a sheet of glass and some paper.

[Nigel]

Thanks François. I'll have to have a play with that.

[Francois]

And for contacts on sunprint paper, a halogen lamp, a sheet of glass and a negative will get you printing even in the winter.

[Late Developer]

Lara and I went to see "The Radical Eye" today and thoroughly enjoyed it.  Also, despite my general anathema to modern art, we joined the Tate and I'll be doing my best to put aside my prejudices towards the more "challenging" pieces on display.  Anyway, back to the exhibition....

I dread to think how much Sir Elton has had to pay to collect 8,000 pieces of photographic art by such eminent photographers - but well done to him for doing so - especially from a standing start in 1990 when, as he admits, he knew nothing about the subject.  The 150 items on show were varied in both subject matter and era and they were very well grouped, in my opinion.  The eldest dated back to 1920's and the newest to the 50's / 60's.  There are a lot of Man Ray exhibits - I suspect Sir Elton has a soft spot for his portraits.  All but a couple of photos are in black and white.  The other couple are, I think, autochromes.  My favourites were The Migrant Mother, Irving Penn's portraits and some of Imogen Cunningham's work.  So much great stuff and very little that didn't make me want to own a copy

The only thing I wasn't so keen on was some of the framing.  Most were fine - quite minimal and didn't detract from the photos.  However, some were a bit, shall we say, flamboyant and, most likely, in keeping with Sir Elton's taste.  This is probably because, from what I could gather, they've literally just been taken off the walls of the (18,000 sq ft) "apartment" he bought - purely to have enough space to exhibit them. 

All-in-all, a great exhibition and well worth the entrance fee, as far as I'm concerned. 

[gothamtomato]

Particularly enjoyable at the exhibition were:

• The fact that you could get right up close to the images and study the heck out of the prints.
• That Amy and I walked around at least two of the rooms the 'wrong' way. We got some testy looks, but we were just paying homage to the Surrealist art on the walls....or something 

The best way to see a crowded museum show is to get there early and walk in the opposite direction of everyone else. You deal with less crowds (for at least part of it) that way.

[gothamtomato]

Sir 'Elt' must have spent millions on the collection. There are around 150 photos on display, but he has many more at home in Atlanta. There's a decent documentary on the Tate web site where you see the collection in situ at his house. It's insane. Literally every piece of wall space is taken over with photographs.

The video is also on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/e2H4sAQocCM

https://www.youtube.com/embed/e2H4sAQocCM

Elton John has been on the annual lists of top art collectors for at least 20 years, I think. Basically that means he spends a lot, but he isn't like a typical rich person. He's also serious about building a formidable collection - and when you hear him speak about it you can see he truly loves the art. It's not just an investment for him.