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