Blog English
Back to Exhibition
Nov 24 2008
The photo at the American BNF
The National Library Richelieu this until January 25, a selection of 320
photographs from its collection of American 70s years. It is a thematic, rather
didactic, which realizes the period, the evolution of photography during this
decade. 'This is the story of a release, a discovery, then a re of vision.' This
is not the place for a history course (but the matter is there), but
nevertheless aware that the exhibition takes place in six phases: precursors,
the influence of snapshot (sequence a little catch-all but the most
interesting), geometry and space, landscape, material and shape, and ultimately
mirrored the dark ( which opens to surrealism and fantasy). What I want to talk
about is what is at the margin, which reveals itself suddenly, a few photos that
you suddenly shaking.
The series Fault Zone, Joe Deal, you undermine the meaning first, because this
serial along the San Andreas Fault in California: in such landscapes inhabited
despite the danger, seen here and there signs imperceptible to detonate in a
calm comfortable place, embankments, rock pile, the drop. This dissonance are
precursors of future disasters proved. Trivializes the series, the tame,
domestic makes, until the furious sweep any kind. These pictures simple, cold,
without primers are just more disturbing (The Fault zone, San Fernando,
California, 1978).
Equally brutal head is this picture of marriage, the wedding picture, (1979) by
Ken Ruth: heads or legs, chest and the lap of the bride in white dress
embroidered emerge from the darkness. The man is a black mass inform, it only
sees his hand and white netting his sleeve. The right hand of the woman in his
back, tense on his left arm with violence unsustainable. The trademark of these
fingers said nervousness, anxiety, fear, disenchantment. It is, without eyes,
without poses, a highly sentimental picture. A little later, a young woman, a
cone of ice by hand, laughs chips to a man without a head, which is a dummy
window: This Winogrand there (New York, 1972) is like a But on the wedding
photo.
The photos street are mostly scenes of community, exchange, communion,
confrontation, desire, but sometimes in the middle of one of them appears
margin, excluding the bizarre, invisible in the crowd. Bruce Gilden has captured
the woman on a street in New Orleans (1987), and vaulted dark mass that no one
sees, if not him, at the expense of the striped shirt of the first plan.
The bizarre is also a matter of form. Kenneth Josephson plays frame so foreign
to echo the landscape within the photo, add a double decimetre indicating the
scale of the landscape in a game abyme, sometimes rather funny. What we see here
is this a picture frame or a landscape? Only the shadow of the photographer can
provide the answer (Los Angeles, 1982).
Anecdotes? Without doubt, but under these generic titles, anecdotes unthinkable
in the previous decade, different visions, another report to the people and
landscapes.
Published November 24 2008 Expos Paris | Permalink | Alert
But fotos em bets.
Beijos
Monica
Written by: Irineu | November 25 2008 at 10:59 | Alert
It is a beautiful journey that proves there. Perhaps the profile of another
America. Far from Mickey, by John Wayne and bling-bling decerebration. And if
Obama was soon to his country's top museum, museum down, we walked up and down
to enjoy all its fruits? On the road again, I'm ready. And you, CHEESE?
Written by: Vince Vint @ ge | November 25 2008 at 11:35 | Alert
Hi Mark,
I found this rather disappointing exhibition, perhaps because of its claim
exhaustive. There are too many absent so that we can talk about American
photography of the seventies. First conceptual artists (Dan Graham with "Homes
For America" would have been a continuation Ed Ruscha). There are other
absentees, photographers mundane, the trivial that the widespread use of color
photography (Shore, Meyerowitz, Eggleston). Only a photo of Eggleston is
presented here, and still well hidden and poorly lit at the bottom of the expo.
The clash of the single work of Ed Rucha is surprising: a book on the wall,
proof that this picture there is still poorly understood here.
The expo provides an importance disproportionate to the Street Photography
demonstrating that exposure is going well in the land of the heirs of
Cartier-Bresson. The experiments involve photographic or authors whose work
(passed today) a "card" in the 80s (The Krim) or formal experiments remain in a
photograph autoréférencée (Burk Uzzle).
These biases prevent measure how the Seventies were the scene of a huge brewing
between purely photographic practices (historical and "street"), formal
experiments (Shore / Eggleston more than Uzzle) and conceptual. This period is
critical in the emergence of the work of photographers / designers of the 80s
(including Philip Lorca di Corcia, Jeff Wall and others).
Finally, the cutting is a bit too didactic purpose. Suddenly, it detracts from
the reading of the work of some photographers including Friedlander and
Winogrand.
That said, if it removes the question of the initial claim of the expo and
talking about the collection BNF same (since it is what it is), we must
recognize that it is very beautiful and that some series are dazzling (Winogrand,
Arbus and Larry Clark).
Written by: Assia Nail | November 25 2008 at 11:38 | Alert
Hello,
What decade are you talking about? If this 70s, I fear it is only a pretext:
what we see in the BNF is simply a risky hanging of a collection, with
classifications ridiculous and wrapped in a irrelevant concept. Exactly what
kind of business that I went out angry when I was 20 years, wondering why the
echoes public were so unanimous.
For just do here Bruce Gilden, clearly off-topic if we stick to this statement?
Why Shore or Eggleston (a picture for him!) Are virtually absent, if not because
Mr. Lemagny did not like the color?
What prospects in the space opens us to?
Etc. Etc. Etc.
It was so simple to unpack the collection and say: "That is what we have." To
think a clash relevant using exactly the same images rather than to mount this
review claims history, inevitably skewed by the material available.
If you forget the form of this exhibition and the catalog that accompanies it,
it must be said that we see beautiful images and all that confirms the place of
some - for example Baltz, upwards, and Uzzle or Harbutt, obviously not at this
level - while others, like the commentary noted above, are sacrificed.
Whatever the frustrations it generates, we must see this exhibition, for the
cast and the incredible impact prints.
Go there warned help avoid frustration and enjoy without restraint of a material
that is increasingly rare.
Written by: C. | November 25 2008, 12:34 | Alert
Beyond the historical, these guys (the absent, but Clark, Arbus, Deal, Ruscha
...) invent a new way to talk about the photo, far from the front denunciation
of misery and ressassé speech on the Other Face of America.
It addresses the many other issues, boredom and monotony of daily life
(Eggleston, Shore, Clark, Ruscha). It reinvents the road trip (Shore) and the
portrait of the territory (Deal, Ruscha) out of myths. It addresses the
inhumanity of places to live (even if Dan Graham is a big shortcut) ...
Above all, the photo says fewer things and opens doors to other readings. A
picture where you feel free to think, free from any limitation.
In the end, it is mostly with the exhibition of forget about.
Written by: Assia Nail | November 25 2008, 12:50 | Alert
a small remark!
do not you find strange that there is a color photo and more winding up the
journey?
Is this merely the absence of such photos in the collections of a bnf, and if
so, would it not be notified?
and if it is a choice not have to be explained more clearly?
because spring with the impression that the color not yet exist and that's very
strange!
is what really surprise me in this show!
Written by: Alexie | November 25 2008 at 13:24 | Alert
Yes the show is a bit dull and a little serious ... From here to talk about
exasperated visitor to the final, it must not exaggerate ...
We must not ignore his pleasure. The photos are beautiful.
They come from a collection governed by choice, deficits and failure (as any
collection) (hence the absence, I think photos by Stephen Shore, a precursor
also another vision of America)
I found that exposure complemented the work done in recent years by some
commissioners, including palm and Thursday in Sully, around the photo years of
U.S. 50/70. See Stephen Shore, Ruscha, Friedlander.
... But it's true, I was fortunate to be curious and see these exhibitions
sometimes without knowing anything of these artists ...
For my part, I took photos of Larry Clark in full gums (I knew his work as a
filmmaker but not photographer) - the series entitled "teenage lust" is
beautiful, very violent and shocking.
Written by: Cecile B | November 25 2008 at 15:01 | Alert
Otherwise, red glasses, the wedding picture ... yes ... yes ... of course ...
I was challenged to leave - I reluctantly dropped - I came back.
I returned the watch at least five times!
Written by: Cecile B | November 25 2008 at 15:12 | Alert
I agree with the concert disappointed.
A series of disparate works, I confirm that very quickly gives a sense of a
clash random bulk of parts which deserved better than that.
Strange as the bias not to expose color photos even if it is true that color
photography has been admitted to institutions in the 80s ... and it is therefore
still the question of readability of this expo could have been quite different
if she had wanted a little more ambitious.
Written by: Arslan | November 25 2008 at 18:34 | Alert
As noted above, Jean-Claude Lemagny, the curator of the Cabinet of prints, was
not interested in the color photograph, and only to those shown in this
exhibition ...
That is because of the fragmented aspect of this collection, which historically
is not representative. The thinking seemed to have been minimal, it does little
to the intentions of the commissioners, the period and its challenges, or at
least we understand the need to further draw in anthologies incomplete to redo
the history (those such present at the conference to Larissa Dryansky Mep two
years ago will be a little more advanced).
Written by: Susanna | November 25 2008 at 19:38 | Alert
Thank you to remember with equal force, but in fact, the exhibition of a
collection, not a panorama representative.
It is indeed the issues of definitions excluding photography from the critical
years of Commissioners and 70s: black and white or color, and address the
conceptual caution. It is not that 'Mr Lemagny did not like the color' is that
his vision of the photo at that time was conditioned by certain cultural
parameters (say, for simplicity, HCB), or personal history (his father was
recorder) and that the collection was built on these bases (there are probably a
story critical of the collection BNF write, but it was not my point).
But within that framework pre-defined, I found myself at your difference, the
speech clear and the course certainly too didactic, but readable (with the
exception of series ordinary people, displaced incomprehensible), neither random
nor diverse as we want to accept the premise.
The only comment that I do not agree is the second of Assia Nails:
"Says the photo under things and opens doors to other readings. A picture where
you feel free to think, free from any limitation.
In the end, it is mostly with the exhibition of forget about. "
The photographers that you regret the absence certainly would also open the
door, other doors, but those presented here seem to be able to provide spaces
for freedom just as heady, either Larry Clark, Gary Winogrand, John Deal or
Kenneth Josephson. And this seems to be the face breaking the previous two
decades, this re the fact that freedom deal with the rules. I had the feeling
that the expo just talking about it, the first section elsewhere.
Written by: Red Glasses | November 25 2008 at 20:28 | Alert
10 posts, America still intrigue. We want to bombard us with the Chinese,
Russians and Indians, but whatever the art market which surgonfle ratings to
attract collectors bling bling of these lands then, the United States remains a
great mythology. A territory already painting, photo or film. From Cinemascope
and Technicolor live.
Written by: Vince Vint @ ge | November 25 2008 at 20:31 | Alert
Red glasses,
Mr. Lemagny did not really color, and has over the years locked in his own
utopia. A look at his latest book, "The shadow, material, fiction" is
instructive in this view, fifteen years after its release.
But Lemagny made a lot of work to help the recognition of photography in France
and we can forgive him for not having been totally receptive to certain
currents. This collection, with its flaws, is still a beautiful song.
However, the exhibition is indeed clear, and as you say, we must accept the
premise. For my part, I find it singularly oscillator. Still, with "objectivity"
and these photos U.S. was currently in Paris which include a little better
photography today.
Written by: Susanna | November 25 2008 at 21:23 | Alert
This is a comment made wrong in fact and in part that contradicts the previous
... You're right, those that you are opening cites as others and the cell "Arbus"
at the entrance welcome from the first glance . By "this is especially the expo
which it forgets to mention" I thought the variety of practices, including those
not included in the collections, even to mention only.
For those exposed, it is a real chance to see Paris as Susanna said. Especially
that part of the "missing" is at the Red House at this time.
Written by: Assia Nail | November 25 2008 at 23:37 | Alert
I agree with what "red eye".
The NL (including Richelieu) regularly climbs a few exhibitions scale tour
transverse and depth of a topic (see there is a long time "all knowledge of the
world" or "Proust" or more recently "Artaud") . They are often at Tolbiac.
As for the NL Richelieu, exhibitions, often seems to be for many practices,
value and give visitors see funds prints, illuminations and photos (because
these funds National, very rich and extraordinary must be accessible to all and
not only to researchers).
The commisssaires, contrary to what some posts, to hide and rarely put cards on
the table at the start of the expo.
After we can always criticize and regret
- How a collection was formed (the whole question of museums and libraries: how
to be in tune with reality, be snoop, have flair and intelligence, have the
spirit of progress edge ... and the means to do so)
- Choices of questionable or timid commissioners expo (but it, too harsh law of
taste and some of the selection in the selection!)
- The mindset of some conservatives ... regularly and voluntarily Conservatives
...
- The museum often sober, austere and dull presentations at Richelieu (but it
also feels good ... At least the outlook does not disperse and not dwell on the
works presented)
- And finally, and here I stress, the constant lack of formal awful historical
exhibitions of the NL Richelieu ...
For some exhibitions, such as this, I do not want ... I sail in sight and let me
seduce. For others, it's boring ...
(see the exhibition "Daumier" extremely poor at this level - - I am not an
expert of the nineteenth and the July Monarchy, its turpitude and its opposition
movements revolutionary socialist or Republicans! Despite a small general yet
This, I drool. I had to look into the history books out!) (but I am straying
from the photo of the 70s ...)
Written by: Cecile B | November 26 2008 at 14:12 | Alert
Dear Life Cecile B artists, entry into historical context, I do think this
sentence Toréador astrologer and Spanish eighteenth Diego Torres Villarroel,
that "history was the painful exercise of digging up corpses already rotten."
The historian who wants human can not help but make his work with turmoil in the
stomach.
Written by: Manuel Montero | November 26 2008 at 20:32 | Alert
History was the painful exercise of digging up corpses already rotten "(Diego
Torres Villarroel)
Yes, I have known her aunt, Maria Elena Torres Villarroel del Sol.
Apart from that, human science, and why not put the artistic research there, and
death are bedfellows, Plato said it does not: "Philosopher, is learning to die.
?
And think about the approach of a Opalka, just that. White on white, like a
paint-shroud, or the chronicle of a death foretold.
Written by: Vince Vint @ ge | November 27 2008 at 19:56 | Alert
I should stop the literacy as I do with my crumbs? It is oracular, an
exploration own art to science. I can feel death and notwithstanding the memory
invents a new life.
Written by: Manuel Montero | November 28 2008 at 01:28 | Alert
"Science of art", yes, we talk about science as art. Museums are good, Ribes
said recently that the visit of an exhibition could be compared to homeopathy,
it opens the mind and can not burdened under the gangue of capitalism
performative all horsehair. ... Buy It!
(Red Glasses should be beatified).
Written by: Vince Vint @ ge | November 28 2008, 11:13 | Alert
I did not quite grasped the whole wave of reactions that my digression on
Daumier has generated.
I find that even through combination of ideas, compare Daumier, his art of
cartooning, drawing acid and its strong commitment and risky for the Republic
(at a time when it was imprisonment, censorship and sometimes death ) To a
"rotten corpse" is a bit strange. Is that I found alive, me, that man and the
struggle for the republican values!
Otherwise, I sometimes, it's true, compared museums vast cemeteries but which
(unlike Lamartine) (since you go all your erudite quote) I am never tired or
against which I rarely angry (unlike Marinetti) but I feel the contrary, well
protected, soothed, as in a cocoon of scenery or I'm me or questioned about my
tastes, my opnions and my knowledge.
After that, I know that it is not in museums that art is ...
Written by: Cecile B | November 28 2008 at 11:54 | Alert
[...] Which in his comments (http://lunettesrouges.blog.lemonde.fr/2008/11/24/la-photo-americaine-a-la-bnf/
# comments) really bright, [...]
Written by: Looking good ... "Blog Archive" What I learn from a blog: the
exhibition "the picture to the American BNF" on the fascinating blog "Amateur
Art" (or by ...) " Glasses road | November 28 2008 at 12:01 | Alert
America, far from cliches, can create many dreams and hopes.
Regarding art, how often did not surprise the world by showing an ability to
build new trails ...
http://boubekeur.blog.lemonde.fr/2008/11/05/i-have-a-dream
Sincerely,
Boubekeur
Written by: Boubekeur | November 29 2008 at 09:53 | Alert
Mille exceeded mill e tre perhaps? Bonne continuation, as you'll want, you will
follow with pleasure.
Today: Curious as when it comes to a subject in connection with America, there
are readers in a wave of off-topic contempteur; it hérisse me!
Written by: Charlotte | November 29 2008 at 14:12 | Alert
I like your blog. J'atends your visit to http://elblogdeadelleh.blogspot.com/
Written by: Mário Bruno Cruz | November 29 2008 at 22:11 | Alert
I agree that this exhibition is didactic, even if it allows us to see some small
jewels of American photography hitherto hidden in the cupboards of the BNF (it
is normal after all to discover that institutions with gain taxpayers' money).
What struck me most is not the scrappy side of the exhibition, but the
deplorable condition prints of Diane Arbus, which, if not in this state at their
donation to the BNF, reveal the lack of resources available to institutions in
France for the conservation of heritage photographic art. How can we then
criticize the fact that the photograph of the 19th century French often leave
our country to join the prestigious collections in the United States or
elsewhere? They, at least, understood early on the value of photographic
printing as works of art.
Written by: LUNN | November 30 2008 at 18:18 | Alert
But if I am beatified, I'll have to be nice all the time? Impossible!
Written by: Red Glasses | November 30 2008 at 20:35 | Alert
I did not go see the exhibition as a consultant in the catalog I realized that
there was not much: the color photograph. For it is from 70 years as color
photograph, regarded as trivial and "advertising" is integrated with the rest
some resistance in the circuit art. Neither William Eggleston and Stephen Shore
are present in this exhibition, which I believe is the obvious scandal of the
exhibition and an institution geared to forget the part of this work. An
editorial scandal for those who claim to reflect the "American photography"
during the 70s: are present as photographers black and white. This exhibition is
therefore ideologically oriented, even conservative in its genre.
French > English swapTranslate
Nov 24 2008
The photo at the American BNF
The National Library Richelieu this until January 25, a selection of 320
photographs from its collection of American 70s years. It is a thematic, rather
didactic, which realizes the period, the evolution of photography during this
decade. 'This is the story of a release, a discovery, then a re of vision.' This
is not the place for a history course (but the matter is there), but
nevertheless aware that the exhibition takes place in six phases: precursors,
the influence of snapshot (sequence a little catch-all but the most
interesting), geometry and space, landscape, material and shape, and ultimately
mirrored the dark ( which opens to surrealism and fantasy). What I want to talk
about is what is at the margin, which reveals itself suddenly, a few photos that
you suddenly shaking.
The series Fault Zone, Joe Deal, you undermine the meaning first, because this
serial along the San Andreas Fault in California: in such landscapes inhabited
despite the danger, seen here and there signs imperceptible to detonate in a
calm comfortable place, embankments, rock pile, the drop. This dissonance are
precursors of future disasters proved. Trivializes the series, the tame,
domestic makes, until the furious sweep any kind. These pictures simple, cold,
without primers are just more disturbing (The Fault zone, San Fernando,
California, 1978).
Equally brutal head is this picture of marriage, the wedding picture, (1979) by
Ken Ruth: heads or legs, chest and the lap of the bride in white dress
embroidered emerge from the darkness. The man is a black mass inform, it only
sees his hand and white netting his sleeve. The right hand of the woman in his
back, tense on his left arm with violence unsustainable. The trademark of these
fingers said nervousness, anxiety, fear, disenchantment. It is, without eyes,
without poses, a highly sentimental picture. A little later, a young woman, a
cone of ice by hand, laughs chips to a man without a head, which is a dummy
window: This Winogrand there (New York, 1972) is like a But on the wedding
photo.
The photos street are mostly scenes of community, exchange, communion,
confrontation, desire, but sometimes in the middle of one of them appears
margin, excluding the bizarre, invisible in the crowd. Bruce Gilden has captured
the woman on a street in New Orleans (1987), and vaulted dark mass that no one
sees, if not him, at the expense of the striped shirt of the first plan.
The bizarre is also a matter of form. Kenneth Josephson plays frame so foreign
to echo the landscape within the photo, add a double decimetre indicating the
scale of the landscape in a game abyme, sometimes rather funny. What we see here
is this a picture frame or a landscape? Only the shadow of the photographer can
provide the answer (Los Angeles, 1982).
Anecdotes? Without doubt, but under these generic titles, anecdotes unthinkable
in the previous decade, different visions, another report to the people and
landscapes.
Published November 24 2008 Expos Paris | Permalink | Alert
But fotos em bets.
Beijos
Monica
Written by: Irineu | November 25 2008 at 10:59 | Alert
It is a beautiful journey that proves there. Perhaps the profile of another
America. Far from Mickey, by John Wayne and bling-bling decerebration. And if
Obama was soon to his country's top museum, museum down, we walked up and down
to enjoy all its fruits? On the road again, I'm ready. And you, CHEESE?
Written by: Vince Vint @ ge | November 25 2008 at 11:35 | Alert
Hi Mark,
I found this rather disappointing exhibition, perhaps because of its claim
exhaustive. There are too many absent so that we can talk about American
photography of the seventies. First conceptual artists (Dan Graham with "Homes
For America" would have been a continuation Ed Ruscha). There are other
absentees, photographers mundane, the trivial that the widespread use of color
photography (Shore, Meyerowitz, Eggleston). Only a photo of Eggleston is
presented here, and still well hidden and poorly lit at the bottom of the expo.
The clash of the single work of Ed Rucha is surprising: a book on the wall,
proof that this picture there is still poorly understood here.
The expo provides an importance disproportionate to the Street Photography
demonstrating that exposure is going well in the land of the heirs of
Cartier-Bresson. The experiments involve photographic or authors whose work
(passed today) a "card" in the 80s (The Krim) or formal experiments remain in a
photograph autoréférencée (Burk Uzzle).
These biases prevent measure how the Seventies were the scene of a huge brewing
between purely photographic practices (historical and "street"), formal
experiments (Shore / Eggleston more than Uzzle) and conceptual. This period is
critical in the emergence of the work of photographers / designers of the 80s
(including Philip Lorca di Corcia, Jeff Wall and others).
Finally, the cutting is a bit too didactic purpose. Suddenly, it detracts from
the reading of the work of some photographers including Friedlander and
Winogrand.
That said, if it removes the question of the initial claim of the expo and
talking about the collection BNF same (since it is what it is), we must
recognize that it is very beautiful and that some series are dazzling (Winogrand,
Arbus and Larry Clark).
Written by: Assia Nail | November 25 2008 at 11:38 | Alert
Hello,
What decade are you talking about? If this 70s, I fear it is only a pretext:
what we see in the BNF is simply a risky hanging of a collection, with
classifications ridiculous and wrapped in a irrelevant concept. Exactly what
kind of business that I went out angry when I was 20 years, wondering why the
echoes public were so unanimous.
For just do here Bruce Gilden, clearly off-topic if we stick to this statement?
Why Shore or Eggleston (a picture for him!) Are virtually absent, if not because
Mr. Lemagny did not like the color?
What prospects in the space opens us to?
Etc. Etc. Etc.
It was so simple to unpack the collection and say: "That is what we have." To
think a clash relevant using exactly the same images rather than to mount this
review claims history, inevitably skewed by the material available.
If you forget the form of this exhibition and the catalog that accompanies it,
it must be said that we see beautiful images and all that confirms the place of
some - for example Baltz, upwards, and Uzzle or Harbutt, obviously not at this
level - while others, like the commentary noted above, are sacrificed.
Whatever the frustrations it generates, we must see this exhibition, for the
cast and the incredible impact prints.
Go there warned help avoid frustration and enjoy without restraint of a material
that is increasingly rare.
Written by: C. | November 25 2008, 12:34 | Alert
Beyond the historical, these guys (the absent, but Clark, Arbus, Deal, Ruscha
...) invent a new way to talk about the photo, far from the front denunciation
of misery and ressassé speech on the Other Face of America.
It addresses the many other issues, boredom and monotony of daily life
(Eggleston, Shore, Clark, Ruscha). It reinvents the road trip (Shore) and the
portrait of the territory (Deal, Ruscha) out of myths. It addresses the
inhumanity of places to live (even if Dan Graham is a big shortcut) ...
Above all, the photo says fewer things and opens doors to other readings. A
picture where you feel free to think, free from any limitation.
In the end, it is mostly with the exhibition of forget about.
Written by: Assia Nail | November 25 2008, 12:50 | Alert
a small remark!
do not you find strange that there is a color photo and more winding up the
journey?
Is this merely the absence of such photos in the collections of a bnf, and if
so, would it not be notified?
and if it is a choice not have to be explained more clearly?
because spring with the impression that the color not yet exist and that's very
strange!
is what really surprise me in this show!
Written by: Alexie | November 25 2008 at 13:24 | Alert
Yes the show is a bit dull and a little serious ... From here to talk about
exasperated visitor to the final, it must not exaggerate ...
We must not ignore his pleasure. The photos are beautiful.
They come from a collection governed by choice, deficits and failure (as any
collection) (hence the absence, I think photos by Stephen Shore, a precursor
also another vision of America)
I found that exposure complemented the work done in recent years by some
commissioners, including palm and Thursday in Sully, around the photo years of
U.S. 50/70. See Stephen Shore, Ruscha, Friedlander.
... But it's true, I was fortunate to be curious and see these exhibitions
sometimes without knowing anything of these artists ...
For my part, I took photos of Larry Clark in full gums (I knew his work as a
filmmaker but not photographer) - the series entitled "teenage lust" is
beautiful, very violent and shocking.
Written by: Cecile B | November 25 2008 at 15:01 | Alert
Otherwise, red glasses, the wedding picture ... yes ... yes ... of course ...
I was challenged to leave - I reluctantly dropped - I came back.
I returned the watch at least five times!
Written by: Cecile B | November 25 2008 at 15:12 | Alert
I agree with the concert disappointed.
A series of disparate works, I confirm that very quickly gives a sense of a
clash random bulk of parts which deserved better than that.
Strange as the bias not to expose color photos even if it is true that color
photography has been admitted to institutions in the 80s ... and it is therefore
still the question of readability of this expo could have been quite different
if she had wanted a little more ambitious.
Written by: Arslan | November 25 2008 at 18:34 | Alert
As noted above, Jean-Claude Lemagny, the curator of the Cabinet of prints, was
not interested in the color photograph, and only to those shown in this
exhibition ...
That is because of the fragmented aspect of this collection, which historically
is not representative. The thinking seemed to have been minimal, it does little
to the intentions of the commissioners, the period and its challenges, or at
least we understand the need to further draw in anthologies incomplete to redo
the history (those such present at the conference to Larissa Dryansky Mep two
years ago will be a little more advanced).
Written by: Susanna | November 25 2008 at 19:38 | Alert
Thank you to remember with equal force, but in fact, the exhibition of a
collection, not a panorama representative.
It is indeed the issues of definitions excluding photography from the critical
years of Commissioners and 70s: black and white or color, and address the
conceptual caution. It is not that 'Mr Lemagny did not like the color' is that
his vision of the photo at that time was conditioned by certain cultural
parameters (say, for simplicity, HCB), or personal history (his father was
recorder) and that the collection was built on these bases (there are probably a
story critical of the collection BNF write, but it was not my point).
But within that framework pre-defined, I found myself at your difference, the
speech clear and the course certainly too didactic, but readable (with the
exception of series ordinary people, displaced incomprehensible), neither random
nor diverse as we want to accept the premise.
The only comment that I do not agree is the second of Assia Nails:
"Says the photo under things and opens doors to other readings. A picture where
you feel free to think, free from any limitation.
In the end, it is mostly with the exhibition of forget about. "
The photographers that you regret the absence certainly would also open the
door, other doors, but those presented here seem to be able to provide spaces
for freedom just as heady, either Larry Clark, Gary Winogrand, John Deal or
Kenneth Josephson. And this seems to be the face breaking the previous two
decades, this re the fact that freedom deal with the rules. I had the feeling
that the expo just talking about it, the first section elsewhere.
Written by: Red Glasses | November 25 2008 at 20:28 | Alert
10 posts, America still intrigue. We want to bombard us with the Chinese,
Russians and Indians, but whatever the art market which surgonfle ratings to
attract collectors bling bling of these lands then, the United States remains a
great mythology. A territory already painting, photo or film. From Cinemascope
and Technicolor live.
Written by: Vince Vint @ ge | November 25 2008 at 20:31 | Alert
Red glasses,
Mr. Lemagny did not really color, and has over the years locked in his own
utopia. A look at his latest book, "The shadow, material, fiction" is
instructive in this view, fifteen years after its release.
But Lemagny made a lot of work to help the recognition of photography in France
and we can forgive him for not having been totally receptive to certain
currents. This collection, with its flaws, is still a beautiful song.
However, the exhibition is indeed clear, and as you say, we must accept the
premise. For my part, I find it singularly oscillator. Still, with "objectivity"
and these photos U.S. was currently in Paris which include a little better
photography today.
Written by: Susanna | November 25 2008 at 21:23 | Alert
This is a comment made wrong in fact and in part that contradicts the previous
... You're right, those that you are opening cites as others and the cell "Arbus"
at the entrance welcome from the first glance . By "this is especially the expo
which it forgets to mention" I thought the variety of practices, including those
not included in the collections, even to mention only.
For those exposed, it is a real chance to see Paris as Susanna said. Especially
that part of the "missing" is at the Red House at this time.
Written by: Assia Nail | November 25 2008 at 23:37 | Alert
I agree with what "red eye".
The NL (including Richelieu) regularly climbs a few exhibitions scale tour
transverse and depth of a topic (see there is a long time "all knowledge of the
world" or "Proust" or more recently "Artaud") . They are often at Tolbiac.
As for the NL Richelieu, exhibitions, often seems to be for many practices,
value and give visitors see funds prints, illuminations and photos (because
these funds National, very rich and extraordinary must be accessible to all and
not only to researchers).
The commisssaires, contrary to what some posts, to hide and rarely put cards on
the table at the start of the expo.
After we can always criticize and regret
- How a collection was formed (the whole question of museums and libraries: how
to be in tune with reality, be snoop, have flair and intelligence, have the
spirit of progress edge ... and the means to do so)
- Choices of questionable or timid commissioners expo (but it, too harsh law of
taste and some of the selection in the selection!)
- The mindset of some conservatives ... regularly and voluntarily Conservatives
...
- The museum often sober, austere and dull presentations at Richelieu (but it
also feels good ... At least the outlook does not disperse and not dwell on the
works presented)
- And finally, and here I stress, the constant lack of formal awful historical
exhibitions of the NL Richelieu ...
For some exhibitions, such as this, I do not want ... I sail in sight and let me
seduce. For others, it's boring ...
(see the exhibition "Daumier" extremely poor at this level - - I am not an
expert of the nineteenth and the July Monarchy, its turpitude and its opposition
movements revolutionary socialist or Republicans! Despite a small general yet
This, I drool. I had to look into the history books out!) (but I am straying
from the photo of the 70s ...)
Written by: Cecile B | November 26 2008 at 14:12 | Alert
Dear Life Cecile B artists, entry into historical context, I do think this
sentence Toréador astrologer and Spanish eighteenth Diego Torres Villarroel,
that "history was the painful exercise of digging up corpses already rotten."
The historian who wants human can not help but make his work with turmoil in the
stomach.
Written by: Manuel Montero | November 26 2008 at 20:32 | Alert
History was the painful exercise of digging up corpses already rotten "(Diego
Torres Villarroel)
Yes, I have known her aunt, Maria Elena Torres Villarroel del Sol.
Apart from that, human science, and why not put the artistic research there, and
death are bedfellows, Plato said it does not: "Philosopher, is learning to die.
?
And think about the approach of a Opalka, just that. White on white, like a
paint-shroud, or the chronicle of a death foretold.
Written by: Vince Vint @ ge | November 27 2008 at 19:56 | Alert
I should stop the literacy as I do with my crumbs? It is oracular, an
exploration own art to science. I can feel death and notwithstanding the memory
invents a new life.
Written by: Manuel Montero | November 28 2008 at 01:28 | Alert
"Science of art", yes, we talk about science as art. Museums are good, Ribes
said recently that the visit of an exhibition could be compared to homeopathy,
it opens the mind and can not burdened under the gangue of capitalism
performative all horsehair. ... Buy It!
(Red Glasses should be beatified).
Written by: Vince Vint @ ge | November 28 2008, 11:13 | Alert
I did not quite grasped the whole wave of reactions that my digression on
Daumier has generated.
I find that even through combination of ideas, compare Daumier, his art of
cartooning, drawing acid and its strong commitment and risky for the Republic
(at a time when it was imprisonment, censorship and sometimes death ) To a
"rotten corpse" is a bit strange. Is that I found alive, me, that man and the
struggle for the republican values!
Otherwise, I sometimes, it's true, compared museums vast cemeteries but which
(unlike Lamartine) (since you go all your erudite quote) I am never tired or
against which I rarely angry (unlike Marinetti) but I feel the contrary, well
protected, soothed, as in a cocoon of scenery or I'm me or questioned about my
tastes, my opnions and my knowledge.
After that, I know that it is not in museums that art is ...
Written by: Cecile B | November 28 2008 at 11:54 | Alert
[...] Which in his comments (http://lunettesrouges.blog.lemonde.fr/2008/11/24/la-photo-americaine-a-la-bnf/
# comments) really bright, [...]
Written by: Looking good ... "Blog Archive" What I learn from a blog: the
exhibition "the picture to the American BNF" on the fascinating blog "Amateur
Art" (or by ...) " Glasses road | November 28 2008 at 12:01 | Alert
America, far from cliches, can create many dreams and hopes.
Regarding art, how often did not surprise the world by showing an ability to
build new trails ...
http://boubekeur.blog.lemonde.fr/2008/11/05/i-have-a-dream
Sincerely,
Boubekeur
Written by: Boubekeur | November 29 2008 at 09:53 | Alert
Mille exceeded mill e tre perhaps? Bonne continuation, as you'll want, you will
follow with pleasure.
Today: Curious as when it comes to a subject in connection with America, there
are readers in a wave of off-topic contempteur; it hérisse me!
Written by: Charlotte | November 29 2008 at 14:12 | Alert
I like your blog. J'atends your visit to http://elblogdeadelleh.blogspot.com/
Written by: Mário Bruno Cruz | November 29 2008 at 22:11 | Alert
I agree that this exhibition is didactic, even if it allows us to see some small
jewels of American photography hitherto hidden in the cupboards of the BNF (it
is normal after all to discover that institutions with gain taxpayers' money).
What struck me most is not the scrappy side of the exhibition, but the
deplorable condition prints of Diane Arbus, which, if not in this state at their
donation to the BNF, reveal the lack of resources available to institutions in
France for the conservation of heritage photographic art. How can we then
criticize the fact that the photograph of the 19th century French often leave
our country to join the prestigious collections in the United States or
elsewhere? They, at least, understood early on the value of photographic
printing as works of art.
Written by: LUNN | November 30 2008 at 18:18 | Alert
But if I am beatified, I'll have to be nice all the time? Impossible!
Written by: Red Glasses | November 30 2008 at 20:35 | Alert
I did not go see the exhibition as a consultant in the catalog I realized that
there was not much: the color photograph. For it is from 70 years as color
photograph, regarded as trivial and "advertising" is integrated with the rest
some resistance in the circuit art. Neither William Eggleston and Stephen Shore
are present in this exhibition, which I believe is the obvious scandal of the
exhibition and an institution geared to forget the part of this work. An
editorial scandal for those who claim to reflect the "American photography"
during the 70s: are present as photographers black and white. This exhibition is
therefore ideologically oriented, even conservative in its genre.
French > English swapTranslate
Nov 24 2008
The photo at the American BNF
The National Library Richelieu this until January 25, a selection of 320
photographs from its collection of American 70s years. It is a thematic, rather
didactic, which realizes the period, the evolution of photography during this
decade. 'This is the story of a release, a discovery, then a re of vision.' This
is not the place for a history course (but the matter is there), but
nevertheless aware that the exhibition takes place in six phases: precursors,
the influence of snapshot (sequence a little catch-all but the most
interesting), geometry and space, landscape, material and shape, and ultimately
mirrored the dark ( which opens to surrealism and fantasy). What I want to talk
about is what is at the margin, which reveals itself suddenly, a few photos that
you suddenly shaking.
The series Fault Zone, Joe Deal, you undermine the meaning first, because this
serial along the San Andreas Fault in California: in such landscapes inhabited
despite the danger, seen here and there signs imperceptible to detonate in a
calm comfortable place, embankments, rock pile, the drop. This dissonance are
precursors of future disasters proved. Trivializes the series, the tame,
domestic makes, until the furious sweep any kind. These pictures simple, cold,
without primers are just more disturbing (The Fault zone, San Fernando,
California, 1978).
Equally brutal head is this picture of marriage, the wedding picture, (1979) by
Ken Ruth: heads or legs, chest and the lap of the bride in white dress
embroidered emerge from the darkness. The man is a black mass inform, it only
sees his hand and white netting his sleeve. The right hand of the woman in his
back, tense on his left arm with violence unsustainable. The trademark of these
fingers said nervousness, anxiety, fear, disenchantment. It is, without eyes,
without poses, a highly sentimental picture. A little later, a young woman, a
cone of ice by hand, laughs chips to a man without a head, which is a dummy
window: This Winogrand there (New York, 1972) is like a But on the wedding
photo.
The photos street are mostly scenes of community, exchange, communion,
confrontation, desire, but sometimes in the middle of one of them appears
margin, excluding the bizarre, invisible in the crowd. Bruce Gilden has captured
the woman on a street in New Orleans (1987), and vaulted dark mass that no one
sees, if not him, at the expense of the striped shirt of the first plan.
The bizarre is also a matter of form. Kenneth Josephson plays frame so foreign
to echo the landscape within the photo, add a double decimetre indicating the
scale of the landscape in a game abyme, sometimes rather funny. What we see here
is this a picture frame or a landscape? Only the shadow of the photographer can
provide the answer (Los Angeles, 1982).
Anecdotes? Without doubt, but under these generic titles, anecdotes unthinkable
in the previous decade, different visions, another report to the people and
landscapes.
Published November 24 2008 Expos Paris | Permalink | Alert
But fotos em bets.
Beijos
Monica
Written by: Irineu | November 25 2008 at 10:59 | Alert
It is a beautiful journey that proves there. Perhaps the profile of another
America. Far from Mickey, by John Wayne and bling-bling decerebration. And if
Obama was soon to his country's top museum, museum down, we walked up and down
to enjoy all its fruits? On the road again, I'm ready. And you, CHEESE?
Written by: Vince Vint @ ge | November 25 2008 at 11:35 | Alert
Hi Mark,
I found this rather disappointing exhibition, perhaps because of its claim
exhaustive. There are too many absent so that we can talk about American
photography of the seventies. First conceptual artists (Dan Graham with "Homes
For America" would have been a continuation Ed Ruscha). There are other
absentees, photographers mundane, the trivial that the widespread use of color
photography (Shore, Meyerowitz, Eggleston). Only a photo of Eggleston is
presented here, and still well hidden and poorly lit at the bottom of the expo.
The clash of the single work of Ed Rucha is surprising: a book on the wall,
proof that this picture there is still poorly understood here.
The expo provides an importance disproportionate to the Street Photography
demonstrating that exposure is going well in the land of the heirs of
Cartier-Bresson. The experiments involve photographic or authors whose work
(passed today) a "card" in the 80s (The Krim) or formal experiments remain in a
photograph autoréférencée (Burk Uzzle).
These biases prevent measure how the Seventies were the scene of a huge brewing
between purely photographic practices (historical and "street"), formal
experiments (Shore / Eggleston more than Uzzle) and conceptual. This period is
critical in the emergence of the work of photographers / designers of the 80s
(including Philip Lorca di Corcia, Jeff Wall and others).
Finally, the cutting is a bit too didactic purpose. Suddenly, it detracts from
the reading of the work of some photographers including Friedlander and
Winogrand.
That said, if it removes the question of the initial claim of the expo and
talking about the collection BNF same (since it is what it is), we must
recognize that it is very beautiful and that some series are dazzling (Winogrand,
Arbus and Larry Clark).
Written by: Assia Nail | November 25 2008 at 11:38 | Alert
Hello,
What decade are you talking about? If this 70s, I fear it is only a pretext:
what we see in the BNF is simply a risky hanging of a collection, with
classifications ridiculous and wrapped in a irrelevant concept. Exactly what
kind of business that I went out angry when I was 20 years, wondering why the
echoes public were so unanimous.
For just do here Bruce Gilden, clearly off-topic if we stick to this statement?
Why Shore or Eggleston (a picture for him!) Are virtually absent, if not because
Mr. Lemagny did not like the color?
What prospects in the space opens us to?
Etc. Etc. Etc.
It was so simple to unpack the collection and say: "That is what we have." To
think a clash relevant using exactly the same images rather than to mount this
review claims history, inevitably skewed by the material available.
If you forget the form of this exhibition and the catalog that accompanies it,
it must be said that we see beautiful images and all that confirms the place of
some - for example Baltz, upwards, and Uzzle or Harbutt, obviously not at this
level - while others, like the commentary noted above, are sacrificed.
Whatever the frustrations it generates, we must see this exhibition, for the
cast and the incredible impact prints.
Go there warned help avoid frustration and enjoy without restraint of a material
that is increasingly rare.
Written by: C. | November 25 2008, 12:34 | Alert
Beyond the historical, these guys (the absent, but Clark, Arbus, Deal, Ruscha
...) invent a new way to talk about the photo, far from the front denunciation
of misery and ressassé speech on the Other Face of America.
It addresses the many other issues, boredom and monotony of daily life
(Eggleston, Shore, Clark, Ruscha). It reinvents the road trip (Shore) and the
portrait of the territory (Deal, Ruscha) out of myths. It addresses the
inhumanity of places to live (even if Dan Graham is a big shortcut) ...
Above all, the photo says fewer things and opens doors to other readings. A
picture where you feel free to think, free from any limitation.
In the end, it is mostly with the exhibition of forget about.
Written by: Assia Nail | November 25 2008, 12:50 | Alert
a small remark!
do not you find strange that there is a color photo and more winding up the
journey?
Is this merely the absence of such photos in the collections of a bnf, and if
so, would it not be notified?
and if it is a choice not have to be explained more clearly?
because spring with the impression that the color not yet exist and that's very
strange!
is what really surprise me in this show!
Written by: Alexie | November 25 2008 at 13:24 | Alert
Yes the show is a bit dull and a little serious ... From here to talk about
exasperated visitor to the final, it must not exaggerate ...
We must not ignore his pleasure. The photos are beautiful.
They come from a collection governed by choice, deficits and failure (as any
collection) (hence the absence, I think photos by Stephen Shore, a precursor
also another vision of America)
I found that exposure complemented the work done in recent years by some
commissioners, including palm and Thursday in Sully, around the photo years of
U.S. 50/70. See Stephen Shore, Ruscha, Friedlander.
... But it's true, I was fortunate to be curious and see these exhibitions
sometimes without knowing anything of these artists ...
For my part, I took photos of Larry Clark in full gums (I knew his work as a
filmmaker but not photographer) - the series entitled "teenage lust" is
beautiful, very violent and shocking.
Written by: Cecile B | November 25 2008 at 15:01 | Alert
Otherwise, red glasses, the wedding picture ... yes ... yes ... of course ...
I was challenged to leave - I reluctantly dropped - I came back.
I returned the watch at least five times!
Written by: Cecile B | November 25 2008 at 15:12 | Alert
I agree with the concert disappointed.
A series of disparate works, I confirm that very quickly gives a sense of a
clash random bulk of parts which deserved better than that.
Strange as the bias not to expose color photos even if it is true that color
photography has been admitted to institutions in the 80s ... and it is therefore
still the question of readability of this expo could have been quite different
if she had wanted a little more ambitious.
Written by: Arslan | November 25 2008 at 18:34 | Alert
As noted above, Jean-Claude Lemagny, the curator of the Cabinet of prints, was
not interested in the color photograph, and only to those shown in this
exhibition ...
That is because of the fragmented aspect of this collection, which historically
is not representative. The thinking seemed to have been minimal, it does little
to the intentions of the commissioners, the period and its challenges, or at
least we understand the need to further draw in anthologies incomplete to redo
the history (those such present at the conference to Larissa Dryansky Mep two
years ago will be a little more advanced).
Written by: Susanna | November 25 2008 at 19:38 | Alert
Thank you to remember with equal force, but in fact, the exhibition of a
collection, not a panorama representative.
It is indeed the issues of definitions excluding photography from the critical
years of Commissioners and 70s: black and white or color, and address the
conceptual caution. It is not that 'Mr Lemagny did not like the color' is that
his vision of the photo at that time was conditioned by certain cultural
parameters (say, for simplicity, HCB), or personal history (his father was
recorder) and that the collection was built on these bases (there are probably a
story critical of the collection BNF write, but it was not my point).
But within that framework pre-defined, I found myself at your difference, the
speech clear and the course certainly too didactic, but readable (with the
exception of series ordinary people, displaced incomprehensible), neither random
nor diverse as we want to accept the premise.
The only comment that I do not agree is the second of Assia Nails:
"Says the photo under things and opens doors to other readings. A picture where
you feel free to think, free from any limitation.
In the end, it is mostly with the exhibition of forget about. "
The photographers that you regret the absence certainly would also open the
door, other doors, but those presented here seem to be able to provide spaces
for freedom just as heady, either Larry Clark, Gary Winogrand, John Deal or
Kenneth Josephson. And this seems to be the face breaking the previous two
decades, this re the fact that freedom deal with the rules. I had the feeling
that the expo just talking about it, the first section elsewhere.
Written by: Red Glasses | November 25 2008 at 20:28 | Alert
10 posts, America still intrigue. We want to bombard us with the Chinese,
Russians and Indians, but whatever the art market which surgonfle ratings to
attract collectors bling bling of these lands then, the United States remains a
great mythology. A territory already painting, photo or film. From Cinemascope
and Technicolor live.
Written by: Vince Vint @ ge | November 25 2008 at 20:31 | Alert
Red glasses,
Mr. Lemagny did not really color, and has over the years locked in his own
utopia. A look at his latest book, "The shadow, material, fiction" is
instructive in this view, fifteen years after its release.
But Lemagny made a lot of work to help the recognition of photography in France
and we can forgive him for not having been totally receptive to certain
currents. This collection, with its flaws, is still a beautiful song.
However, the exhibition is indeed clear, and as you say, we must accept the
premise. For my part, I find it singularly oscillator. Still, with "objectivity"
and these photos U.S. was currently in Paris which include a little better
photography today.
Written by: Susanna | November 25 2008 at 21:23 | Alert
This is a comment made wrong in fact and in part that contradicts the previous
... You're right, those that you are opening cites as others and the cell "Arbus"
at the entrance welcome from the first glance . By "this is especially the expo
which it forgets to mention" I thought the variety of practices, including those
not included in the collections, even to mention only.
For those exposed, it is a real chance to see Paris as Susanna said. Especially
that part of the "missing" is at the Red House at this time.
Written by: Assia Nail | November 25 2008 at 23:37 | Alert
I agree with what "red eye".
The NL (including Richelieu) regularly climbs a few exhibitions scale tour
transverse and depth of a topic (see there is a long time "all knowledge of the
world" or "Proust" or more recently "Artaud") . They are often at Tolbiac.
As for the NL Richelieu, exhibitions, often seems to be for many practices,
value and give visitors see funds prints, illuminations and photos (because
these funds National, very rich and extraordinary must be accessible to all and
not only to researchers).
The commisssaires, contrary to what some posts, to hide and rarely put cards on
the table at the start of the expo.
After we can always criticize and regret
- How a collection was formed (the whole question of museums and libraries: how
to be in tune with reality, be snoop, have flair and intelligence, have the
spirit of progress edge ... and the means to do so)
- Choices of questionable or timid commissioners expo (but it, too harsh law of
taste and some of the selection in the selection!)
- The mindset of some conservatives ... regularly and voluntarily Conservatives
...
- The museum often sober, austere and dull presentations at Richelieu (but it
also feels good ... At least the outlook does not disperse and not dwell on the
works presented)
- And finally, and here I stress, the constant lack of formal awful historical
exhibitions of the NL Richelieu ...
For some exhibitions, such as this, I do not want ... I sail in sight and let me
seduce. For others, it's boring ...
(see the exhibition "Daumier" extremely poor at this level - - I am not an
expert of the nineteenth and the July Monarchy, its turpitude and its opposition
movements revolutionary socialist or Republicans! Despite a small general yet
This, I drool. I had to look into the history books out!) (but I am straying
from the photo of the 70s ...)
Written by: Cecile B | November 26 2008 at 14:12 | Alert
Dear Life Cecile B artists, entry into historical context, I do think this
sentence Toréador astrologer and Spanish eighteenth Diego Torres Villarroel,
that "history was the painful exercise of digging up corpses already rotten."
The historian who wants human can not help but make his work with turmoil in the
stomach.
Written by: Manuel Montero | November 26 2008 at 20:32 | Alert
History was the painful exercise of digging up corpses already rotten "(Diego
Torres Villarroel)
Yes, I have known her aunt, Maria Elena Torres Villarroel del Sol.
Apart from that, human science, and why not put the artistic research there, and
death are bedfellows, Plato said it does not: "Philosopher, is learning to die.
?
And think about the approach of a Opalka, just that. White on white, like a
paint-shroud, or the chronicle of a death foretold.
Written by: Vince Vint @ ge | November 27 2008 at 19:56 | Alert
I should stop the literacy as I do with my crumbs? It is oracular, an
exploration own art to science. I can feel death and notwithstanding the memory
invents a new life.
Written by: Manuel Montero | November 28 2008 at 01:28 | Alert
"Science of art", yes, we talk about science as art. Museums are good, Ribes
said recently that the visit of an exhibition could be compared to homeopathy,
it opens the mind and can not burdened under the gangue of capitalism
performative all horsehair. ... Buy It!
(Red Glasses should be beatified).
Written by: Vince Vint @ ge | November 28 2008, 11:13 | Alert
I did not quite grasped the whole wave of reactions that my digression on
Daumier has generated.
I find that even through combination of ideas, compare Daumier, his art of
cartooning, drawing acid and its strong commitment and risky for the Republic
(at a time when it was imprisonment, censorship and sometimes death ) To a
"rotten corpse" is a bit strange. Is that I found alive, me, that man and the
struggle for the republican values!
Otherwise, I sometimes, it's true, compared museums vast cemeteries but which
(unlike Lamartine) (since you go all your erudite quote) I am never tired or
against which I rarely angry (unlike Marinetti) but I feel the contrary, well
protected, soothed, as in a cocoon of scenery or I'm me or questioned about my
tastes, my opnions and my knowledge.
After that, I know that it is not in museums that art is ...
Written by: Cecile B | November 28 2008 at 11:54 | Alert
[...] Which in his comments (http://lunettesrouges.blog.lemonde.fr/2008/11/24/la-photo-americaine-a-la-bnf/
# comments) really bright, [...]
Written by: Looking good ... "Blog Archive" What I learn from a blog: the
exhibition "the picture to the American BNF" on the fascinating blog "Amateur
Art" (or by ...) " Glasses road | November 28 2008 at 12:01 | Alert
America, far from cliches, can create many dreams and hopes.
Regarding art, how often did not surprise the world by showing an ability to
build new trails ...
http://boubekeur.blog.lemonde.fr/2008/11/05/i-have-a-dream
Sincerely,
Boubekeur
Written by: Boubekeur | November 29 2008 at 09:53 | Alert
Mille exceeded mill e tre perhaps? Bonne continuation, as you'll want, you will
follow with pleasure.
Today: Curious as when it comes to a subject in connection with America, there
are readers in a wave of off-topic contempteur; it hérisse me!
Written by: Charlotte | November 29 2008 at 14:12 | Alert
I like your blog. J'atends your visit to http://elblogdeadelleh.blogspot.com/
Written by: Mário Bruno Cruz | November 29 2008 at 22:11 | Alert
I agree that this exhibition is didactic, even if it allows us to see some small
jewels of American photography hitherto hidden in the cupboards of the BNF (it
is normal after all to discover that institutions with gain taxpayers' money).
What struck me most is not the scrappy side of the exhibition, but the
deplorable condition prints of Diane Arbus, which, if not in this state at their
donation to the BNF, reveal the lack of resources available to institutions in
France for the conservation of heritage photographic art. How can we then
criticize the fact that the photograph of the 19th century French often leave
our country to join the prestigious collections in the United States or
elsewhere? They, at least, understood early on the value of photographic
printing as works of art.
Written by: LUNN | November 30 2008 at 18:18 | Alert
But if I am beatified, I'll have to be nice all the time? Impossible!
Written by: Red Glasses | November 30 2008 at 20:35 | Alert
I did not go see the exhibition as a consultant in the catalog I realized that
there was not much: the color photograph. For it is from 70 years as color
photograph, regarded as trivial and "advertising" is integrated with the rest
some resistance in the circuit art. Neither William Eggleston and Stephen Shore
are present in this exhibition, which I believe is the obvious scandal of the
exhibition and an institution geared to forget the part of this work. An
editorial scandal for those who claim to reflect the "American photography"
during the 70s: are present as photographers black and white. This exhibition is
therefore ideologically oriented, even conservative in its genre.
French > English swapTranslate