Most exhibitions are of the single artist or multiples of them. This one contains just two exhibitors. BUT it relies on one of them for its drawing power.
Bearing that in mind I will start by treating them as separate entities and conclude with an overall view.
The images are laid out in such a way that you start naturally on the 2nd floor and work up, so I will start with the top floor and work down
.
I will not quote from the catalogue but if you go you will notice 'some' similarity because all I know about Lindsay Robertson is what I saw on the wall and read that day.
Here goes.
The first of LR images are in the entrance hall to the top floor and I was encouraged by them. The angled shots of waves and the shoreline images are obviously created by a man who is technically gifted, the long exposures producing a milkiness and soft movement while the printing brings out detail that moves the eye around the scene.
So far 'so good'.
Into the hall and a number of expletives come into my head. Why?
Some of these prints are huge, really huge both in stature and price.
One large image has the obligatory black sky - Really black. Absolutely black. Bible black. No texture, tonal change from one side to the other, no variance from skyline to top of image. Have I made this clear enough. To my eye one third of the image is 'black'.
The detailing is very good and the subjects (mostly landscapes) have been photographed with a sympathetic touch but little or no (as far as I recall) vision or originality. OK there is no true originality it is pretty much derivation but there should be some semblance in there to differentiate his work from the rest of us.
The images in general do not invite you to stay, rather they shout look at me so loudly, I for one wanted nothing more than to leave.
I stayed and continued to look as carefully as I could for some of the connections between LR and AA that I had read about on a poster explaining who LR was.
What was I looking at? Overpowering black and white images of great detail and crispness with an obvious printers hand involved, so involved they took on an etherial quality not born of subtlety, softness or delicacy but of high contrast hammer and fist lighting changes from the digital movie palette .
Light seems to come from nowhere for its own reason to make an almost surreal statement.
I dont know about you but I cannot help overhearing people who dont want to be overheard ;-)
One genteel lady to her friend. You know Ive got one just like that as a screensaver at home, followed by giggling.
That was the answer to the question in my head, she was right.
If I am looking at the work of a man steeped in the life and ethos of AA why do I see a digital image?
So would I buy an LR print for £3800 or so? No. Unless I had a space on a wall in a railway station 20/30 feet from the public to fill and only the taxpayers money to waste. Even then I think I would prefer a Toulouse Lautrec poster. More uplifting.
OK Move on.
Since taking to photography as a hobby and then earning my living at it, Ansell Adams (AA) has been thrust upon me as a godlike figure whose work would change how I view the world if only I would believe the hype.
So it was with much trepidation that I faced his work for the first time, almost expecting to be struck by the lightening of his brilliance.
Well I wasnt, struck that is.
Drawn in, welcomed, consumed, fascinated and deeply impressed yes, but not struck by lightening or any other biblical force. Phew!
From first sight it is obvious that great strength and fortitude was needed to acquire these photographs and that I and many many others out there would not have made it. The images also tell me of our worlds despair with the mountain tops visible then being covered by the muck we now breath making a retake impossible even for AA himself.
The images are sometimes breathtaking, sometimes subtle and eerie but to my eye always finished to near perfection.
A simple portrait of a tree has depth behind it that would stump me as to how it was attained. So subtle, could it really be just a small aperture/long exposure and a great lens?
Of course it is - plus seeing it in the first place, knowing what the image would look like, having the dedication and self belief and of course taking the picture to print yourself.
I have to digress again here to explain that I have a real problem with the language/vocabulary used interminably by commentators on AAs work. It drives me bananas!
AA was not a God, a spirit, an etherial being of gigantic proportions or even noticeably divine as far as I can tell (contradict please if you have observed this divinity in person).
He was, to me, an extremely hard working driven man of great talent who set out to record his worlds beauty the best way he knew how and best of all he succeeded. Rant over.
One image looking down on a snow covered mountainside dotted with thousands of coniferous trees is of such outstanding clarity that it is difficult to think of anything else (wow that is so sharp etc.). The brilliance lies in what appears almost as an afterthought around the edges, beautifully executed sky of gentle graded density, snow with folds bringing a three dimensional appearance to the slope itself.
Magical? no no no not magical, extremely skillful execution and acute observation, oh yes.
The TOTP for me ....... a group of small photographs, mostly vegetation, that were gifts from AA to someone unnamed, printed on what appears to be an old style rag paper much less white than we are used to now.
More than the grander well documented images seen by millions these summed up the AA work ethic perfectly.
The smooth flawless tonal changes and fine focus combine with a supreme pictorial sense of balance moving these beyond anything I have seen before.
Such a simple subject.
One word. Sublime.
It would be pointless to comment on every photograph here so I will conclude with a very few general observations.
I would go to see LRs work again, if it were on its own. I cannot agree with the premise that his work is in some way connected to AAs in anything but subject and maybe goal. Its relative harshness may reflect more of our world now than it does extend or connect to AA. Unfortunately I think you have gathered that it was not for me. Shame.
On the other hand I am now a full blown admirer of AAs photographic acumen and printing innovation. Damn fine work indeed. If you feel I have understated my appreciation in some way to create a reaction please be assured that this exhibition has moved AA well away from your average artisan in my eyes but not quite to the level of a God.
Fair enough?
Bearing that in mind I will start by treating them as separate entities and conclude with an overall view.
The images are laid out in such a way that you start naturally on the 2nd floor and work up, so I will start with the top floor and work down
.I will not quote from the catalogue but if you go you will notice 'some' similarity because all I know about Lindsay Robertson is what I saw on the wall and read that day.
Here goes.
The first of LR images are in the entrance hall to the top floor and I was encouraged by them. The angled shots of waves and the shoreline images are obviously created by a man who is technically gifted, the long exposures producing a milkiness and soft movement while the printing brings out detail that moves the eye around the scene.
So far 'so good'.
Into the hall and a number of expletives come into my head. Why?
Some of these prints are huge, really huge both in stature and price.
One large image has the obligatory black sky - Really black. Absolutely black. Bible black. No texture, tonal change from one side to the other, no variance from skyline to top of image. Have I made this clear enough. To my eye one third of the image is 'black'.
The detailing is very good and the subjects (mostly landscapes) have been photographed with a sympathetic touch but little or no (as far as I recall) vision or originality. OK there is no true originality it is pretty much derivation but there should be some semblance in there to differentiate his work from the rest of us.
The images in general do not invite you to stay, rather they shout look at me so loudly, I for one wanted nothing more than to leave.
I stayed and continued to look as carefully as I could for some of the connections between LR and AA that I had read about on a poster explaining who LR was.
What was I looking at? Overpowering black and white images of great detail and crispness with an obvious printers hand involved, so involved they took on an etherial quality not born of subtlety, softness or delicacy but of high contrast hammer and fist lighting changes from the digital movie palette .
Light seems to come from nowhere for its own reason to make an almost surreal statement.
I dont know about you but I cannot help overhearing people who dont want to be overheard ;-)
One genteel lady to her friend. You know Ive got one just like that as a screensaver at home, followed by giggling.
That was the answer to the question in my head, she was right.
If I am looking at the work of a man steeped in the life and ethos of AA why do I see a digital image?
So would I buy an LR print for £3800 or so? No. Unless I had a space on a wall in a railway station 20/30 feet from the public to fill and only the taxpayers money to waste. Even then I think I would prefer a Toulouse Lautrec poster. More uplifting.
OK Move on.
Since taking to photography as a hobby and then earning my living at it, Ansell Adams (AA) has been thrust upon me as a godlike figure whose work would change how I view the world if only I would believe the hype.
So it was with much trepidation that I faced his work for the first time, almost expecting to be struck by the lightening of his brilliance.
Well I wasnt, struck that is.
Drawn in, welcomed, consumed, fascinated and deeply impressed yes, but not struck by lightening or any other biblical force. Phew!
From first sight it is obvious that great strength and fortitude was needed to acquire these photographs and that I and many many others out there would not have made it. The images also tell me of our worlds despair with the mountain tops visible then being covered by the muck we now breath making a retake impossible even for AA himself.
The images are sometimes breathtaking, sometimes subtle and eerie but to my eye always finished to near perfection.
A simple portrait of a tree has depth behind it that would stump me as to how it was attained. So subtle, could it really be just a small aperture/long exposure and a great lens?
Of course it is - plus seeing it in the first place, knowing what the image would look like, having the dedication and self belief and of course taking the picture to print yourself.
I have to digress again here to explain that I have a real problem with the language/vocabulary used interminably by commentators on AAs work. It drives me bananas!
AA was not a God, a spirit, an etherial being of gigantic proportions or even noticeably divine as far as I can tell (contradict please if you have observed this divinity in person).
He was, to me, an extremely hard working driven man of great talent who set out to record his worlds beauty the best way he knew how and best of all he succeeded. Rant over.
One image looking down on a snow covered mountainside dotted with thousands of coniferous trees is of such outstanding clarity that it is difficult to think of anything else (wow that is so sharp etc.). The brilliance lies in what appears almost as an afterthought around the edges, beautifully executed sky of gentle graded density, snow with folds bringing a three dimensional appearance to the slope itself.
Magical? no no no not magical, extremely skillful execution and acute observation, oh yes.
The TOTP for me ....... a group of small photographs, mostly vegetation, that were gifts from AA to someone unnamed, printed on what appears to be an old style rag paper much less white than we are used to now.
More than the grander well documented images seen by millions these summed up the AA work ethic perfectly.
The smooth flawless tonal changes and fine focus combine with a supreme pictorial sense of balance moving these beyond anything I have seen before.
Such a simple subject.
One word. Sublime.
It would be pointless to comment on every photograph here so I will conclude with a very few general observations.
I would go to see LRs work again, if it were on its own. I cannot agree with the premise that his work is in some way connected to AAs in anything but subject and maybe goal. Its relative harshness may reflect more of our world now than it does extend or connect to AA. Unfortunately I think you have gathered that it was not for me. Shame.
On the other hand I am now a full blown admirer of AAs photographic acumen and printing innovation. Damn fine work indeed. If you feel I have understated my appreciation in some way to create a reaction please be assured that this exhibition has moved AA well away from your average artisan in my eyes but not quite to the level of a God.
Fair enough?
