2011 AIPAD Review, Part 1 of 2

For collectors like us, a visit to the annual AIPAD Photography Show in New York is like being a kid in a candy store; it combines countless moments of wonder with a mind-numbing case of weary visual overload. The show remains the single best annual gathering of photography in the United States, and this year’s 82 exhibitors crisscrossed from 19th century to contemporary work, with a heavy dose of vintage black and white material in between.

Unlike previous years when I have had more time to linger, I only had one afternoon to enjoy the booths this year; no opening night gala, no intimate dinners or cocktail receptions, no leisurely repeat visits on succeeding days. So my experience of the 2011 version of AIPAD was more focused and less methodical than other incarnations; a targeted visit to those booths whose gallery owners I wanted to see or who had work I was particularly interested in, and a cursory swing through the rest. As the years pass, I am more and more struck by the sense of community to be found in these halls: collectors large and small, working photographers, museum curators, gallery owners/dealers, all slowly becoming a dense network of international friends to catch up with, all sharing a common passion for those pictures that make our eyes light up, wherever and whatever they may be. This blog has woven me into the fabric of this community more deeply than I had imagined, and I thoroughly enjoyed having a few quick moments with good friends from afar and putting faces with many personalities I had only known via email. I only wish I had had more time to sift through each and every bin.

This 2011 AIPAD Review will be split into 2 parts, with our customary booth reports, lists of the photographers on view (the number of pictures by each in parentheses) and some additional commentary or a specific image as further illustration. Given my limited time, I only tallied details on 33 booths; those that have been omitted were not necessarily any less compelling, I just didn’t have the time to dive deeper and explore the fringes with more care. I’m sure there were great works hidden on interior walls, behind panels or in boxes that I missed in my haste. Overall, my selections inherently have some bias toward vintage black and white photography, given the dominance of vintage work on view. Anecdotally, the vintage dealers I talked to seemed to be having a more successful fair than their contemporary counterparts, but this was early in the run of the show, so who knows how it actually played out when the masses arrived over the weekend.

The galleries presented are in no particular order, and as always, apologies for the marginal images, as they are often marred by reflections or glare:

Bryce Wolkowitz Gallery (here): Ola Kolehmainen (2), Monika Bravo (3), Bruce Davidson (2), Jim Campbell (1), Pertti Kekarainen (4), Shirley Shor (1), Niko Luoma (1). The Wolkowitz booth was the usual mix of Finns and new media photography. There was a terrific gridded Kolehmainen on the outside wall at the entrance of the show, but I was most surprised by the large scale Luoma. While I have seen these geometric line works before in a variety of colors and patterns, two details were new to me in this image: the monochrome black and white and the monumental size. Given it’s density, it’s a picture you can get lost in; it was priced at $16000.
Weston Gallery (here): Danielle Nelson-Mourning (2), Robert Mapplethorpe (2), Oliver Gagliani (1), Imogen Cunningham (1), Pirkle Jones (1), Edward Weston (5), Wynn Bullock (3), Harry Callahan (2), Ansel Adams (4), George Ballagny (1), Charles Marville (1), Eugene Cuvelier (1), Francis Frith (1), Dr. John Murray (1), JB Greene (1), Edouard Baldus (1), John Thomson (1), plus two bins.

Weinstein Gallery (here): Alec Soth (16). The Weinstein booth was a single artist display of Soth’s new Broken Manual work. Having not seen this body of work in person before, I was most impressed by the continuity of mood across the diverse set of images; it mixes melancholy, fear, anger, distrust, and isolation into a heady brew. I also hadn’t realized that the images were printed in specific and different sizes, i.e. some are small and some are large, and they are not all available in all sizes; Soth has chosen how he wants each image to be sized, thereby creating a certain rhythm to the changes in scale when the works are hung together. The interleaving of color and black and white images also breaks up the natural flow, forcing the viewer to look more closely. The overall effect is controlled and powerful; it’s certainly among his best work. My favorite image was actually a black and white work on one of the exterior walls, a picture of a solitary light bulb strung up in the forest (priced at $15500); the glare was so awful off the face of the frame that I couldn’t get even a marginal picture. So instead, here’s another subtle gut puncher – the white cave with empty hangers (priced at $20700).

Robert Koch Gallery (here): David Parker (1), Masao Yamamoto (3), Andre Kertesz (1), Helen Levitt (1), Imre Kinski (1), Eliott Erwitt (2), Hugh Brown (2), Jeff Brouws (4), Michael Wolf (5), Frantisek Drtikol (1), Joseph Ehm (2), Jusef Sudek (4), Karoly Danassy (1), plus two bins.
Paul M. Hertzmann Inc. (here): Richard Misrach (2), Andre Kertesz (2), Donald Ross (1), Minor White (2), Pim Van Os (1), Brett Weston (1), Alfred Stieglitz (1), Dorothea Lange (1), Edward Weston (2), Eugene Atget (1), Laszlo Moholy-Nagy (1), Roger Parry (1), Berenice Abbott (1), Antonio Garduno (1), Consuelo Kanaga (1), Arthur Siegel (1), Osamu Shiihara (2), GP Fieret (1), plus four bins. I liked the avant-garde jitteriness of this Shiihara multiple exposure nude from the 1930s; it was priced at $9500.

Joseph Bellows Gallery (here): Wayne Lazorik (2), Leroy Robbins (6), Bill Arnold (2), Todd Walker (2), Randal Levenson (3), Thomas Barrow (2), Bevan Davies (4), Terry Wild (1), Charles Johnstone (6), plus two bins.

Robert Klein Gallery (here): Irving Penn (4), Gregory Vershbow (2), Cig Harvey (1), Mario Gaicomelli (3), Alex Webb (2), Ilse Bing (1), Henri Cartier-Bresson (3), Walker Evans (3), Minor White (1), Carleton Watkins (1), Baron Adolph de Meyer (1), Edward Weston (1), Lewis Hine (1), Ansel Adams (3), Aaron Siskind (2), Helen Levitt (1), Arno Rafael Minkkinen (1), Francesca Woodman (4), Paulette Tavormina (3). This Siskind is the kind of image that fits right in the heart of our own collection: a city architectural scene, with strong abstract contrasts of line and form. Priced at $40000.


Yancey Richardson Gallery (here): Alex Prager (1), Olivo Barbieri (2), Victoria Sambunaris (1), Masao Yamamoto (4), Mark Steinmetz (1), Sebastiao Salgado (1), Esko Mannikko (2), Andrew Moore (2), Laura Letinsky (2), Rachel Perry Welty (4).

Gitterman Gallery (here): Frantisek Drtikol (1), Andre Kertesz (2), Clarence White (3), Jessie Tarbox Beals (1), Seneca Ray Stoddard (1), Eugene Atget (1), Aaron Siskind (5), Harry Callahan (4), Minor White (1), Ken Josephson (2), Gita Lenz (3), Ralph Eugene Meatyard (3), Charles Traub (2), Dr. Dain Tasker (1), plus two bins. This was a Callahan multiple I hadn’t seen before; elegant wavy grasses as squiggly lines across the surface of water. Priced at $35000.

Richard Moore Photographs (here): Percy Loomis Sperr (17), Weegee (1), Peter Sekaer (4), Walker Evans (1), Dorothea Lange (1), Ralph Steiner (2), Bill Owens (1), Karl Struss (1), Margarethe Mather (1), plus three bins.

Edwynn Houk Gallery (here): Sebastiaan Bremer (2), Vik Muniz (1), Man Ray (1), Bettina Rheims (2), Robert Polidori (1), Alfred Stieglitz (1), Edward Steichen (1), Paul Strand (1), Hannes Schmid (1), Brassai (1), Andre Kertesz (1), Edward Weston (1), Dorothea Lange (3), Bruce Davidson (1), Walker Evans (1), Sally Mann (1), Joel Meyerowitz (1), Stephen Shore (4). The Houk booth had an embarassment of spectacular photographic masterworks along its interior walls. Bypassing a few notable icons, I was most drawn to this stunning Lange of the SF waterfront strike of 1934. It’s an amazingly nuanced print of a visceral image; priced at $165000.

Lee Gallery (here): Gustave Le Gray (1), Gertrude Kasebier (2), Alfred Stieglitz (1), Heinrich Kühn (11), F. Holland Day (1), plus four bins. This Kühn dahlia is one I hadn’t ever seen before; I actually liked it better than the more famous rubber plant nearby. The texture and patina of the layered leaves is soft and tactile. Priced at $25000.

Deborah Bell Photographs (here): Andy Warhol (6), Marcel Broodthaers (1), Vito Acconci (1), Dennis Oppenheim (1), Marcia Resnick (7), Diane Arbus (1), Louis Fauer (2), Garry Winogrand (1), GP Fieret (4), George Gardner (2), August Sander (2), Susan Paulsen (2).

Amador Gallery (here): Bernd and Hilla Becher (3), Gabriele Basilico (3), Ryuji Miyamoto (1), Arnold Odermatt (8), Robert Voit (8). Basilico’s 1980s images of Dunkirque are among my favorites from his whole career, so I was happy to see one on display in the Amador booth. I’m a sucker for silhouetted industrial forms, and this series is filled with contrasty cranes and traffic lights, abstracted into interlaced geometric lines. Priced at $4500.

Halsted Gallery (here): Irving Penn (2), Paul Anderson (1), Don Hong Oai (1), Kim Kauffman (1), Andre Kertesz (3), Edward Weston (2), Berenice Abbott (3), Arnold Newman (4), Brett Weston (3), Michael Kenna (2), Aaron Siskind (1), George Tice (2), Walker Evans (1), Henri Cartier-Bresson (1), Leonard Freed (1), Ruth Orkin (1), Nicholas Nixon (1), August Sander (1), Karl Struss (1), JH Lartigue (1).

Catherine Edelman Gallery (here): Lucie & Simon (1), Myra Greene (15), Elizabeth Ernst (4), Julie Blackmon (3), Robert & Shana ParkeHarrison (8), Gregory Scott (1), Lori Nix (1), Lauren Simonutti (8). I’ve slowly been getting my head around Lori Nix’ meticulous tabletop dioramas (and their place in the history of staged model building – Simmons, Casebere, Demand etc.), so I spent some time looking at this real but unreal laundromat more closely. The attention to detail is staggering, especially in the subtleties of aging and the nuances of light; priced at $4000.

Part 2 of our AIPAD Review is here.

Top 10 Photo Collectors in ARTnews

While ARTnews has been producing an annual list of top collectors for quite a few years now, the March issue of the magazine digs down into our own world of photography and selects The Top 10 Photo Collectors (here). My first reaction to such a list was a mix of curiosity and outright skepticism. Could they really get such a list “right”? And what criteria would they use to choose the names?

According to the article, the list was selected via a process of consensus gathering; in short, ask enough dealers, auctioneers, collectors, museum directors, and curators until a pattern starts to emerge. Here’s the list they came up with:

David Dechman
Randi and Bob Fisher
Sondra Gilman and Celso Gonzalez-Falla
Daniel Greenberg and Susan Steinhauser
Michael Jesselson
Elton John
Andrew Pilara
Lisa and John Pritzker
Thomas Walther
Michael Wilson

While this is clearly a remarkably esteemed list, a couple of things stick out for me. One, there is zero overlap with the names on the overall list of top art collectors, so there really isn’t any way to compare the activities of photo specialist collectors and broader contemporary art collectors who collect photography as one part of their activities. Two, there are some major photography collectors, with jaw-droppingly impressive collections, who are not on this list.

The article goes on to say that the names “were selected based on how active they are rather than on the size or value of their collections”. So in some ways, this explains the omission of some vast and comprehensive collections; perhaps they have become less “active” as their holdings have increased.

So then I started to parse this word “active”. How might we actually define it? A simple way would be to use it to highlight those collectors who spent the most money on photography in the recent year. The problem with this definition is that a single collector who bought half a dozen very high priced works might be deemed most active. But that then leads to the following conundrum: is a collector who buys 2 $500K photographs more or less active than a collector who acquired 200 $5K photographs? To my mind, the effort and work required to intelligently select and purchase 200 works far outweighs that of purchasing 2; so in addition to quality, quantity must somehow be considered as a meaningful part of this equation.

I think that the major intangible here is the voracity of the searching that a collector exhibits. I’m sure that for some collectors, the two efforts of searching and buying may be roughly equivalent in size. However, I’ve certainly experienced with our own collecting that over time, we’ve seen our searching and learning effort expand exponentially, while our end buying has remained relatively constant; we just spend a lot more time looking, reading and thinking than we used to, and our searching and selecting has become much more targeted. As such, a couple of the names on the list above stand out for me based on this intensity of activity; of course, they are buying photographs on a regular basis, but what makes them important is not the size of their wallets, but their overflowing passion for both the art form and the never ending process of hunting.

In the end, I suppose that whether this list is perfectly representative or not is really beyond the point. The fact that ARTnews went to the trouble of trying to figure out who the top collectors are is real evidence that photography is becoming more and more of a central part of the artistic dialogue, so much so that those avid photography supporters who have quietly amassed museum quality collections are now being recognized as the leaders they have always been.

O. Winston Link: The Last Steam Railroad in America @Mann

JTF (just the facts): A total of 22 black and white and 2 color photographs, framed in black and matted, and hung throughout the main gallery space. Nearly all of the works are later gelatin silver prints, most sized 16×20 or reverse, with 2 outliers (20×24, and 12×51). The two color images are chromogenic dye coupler prints, also sized 16×20. All of the images were taken in between 1955 and 1958. (Installation shots at right.)

Comments/Context: This show of the photography of O. Winston Link is exactly what you would expect it to be. It’s a gathering of nearly every one of his most famous nocturnal steam train images, pictures that chronicle a simpler time before the arrival of the interstate highways. Without a doubt, it’s a greatest hits exhibit, perfect for those who need a refresher on Link and his carefully controlled cinematic drama.

If we step beyond the obvious 1950s nostalgia and the train buff nerdiness and look at Link’s work through the the eyes of today’s contemporary art mindset, I think something surprising happens. I think a pretty compelling argument can be made for placing Link near the beginning of the “staging” timeline I mentioned earlier this week vis a vis the current Staging Action show at the MoMA. His use of artificial lighting and meticulous compositional construction is what makes these images so amazing; in many ways, he’s a direct precursor to the sound stage elaborateness of Wall and Crewdson. The gas station, the swimming hole, the drive-in theater, the horse and buggy, the waterfall, the woman in her living room, the giant oak, yes, they all have a train in them, but the precise placement of that train within the overall scene was anything but accidental or documentary.

When dissected in this manner, I think Link’s work becomes altogether more surreal. The shadows, the smoke, the bright highlights, the glare, nothing was left to chance. I started to notice the float of the steam, the placement of the figures, the areas of dark and light in each image; clearly, he was drawing our eyes to certain spots and hiding others in blackness. The pairing of images at the Rural Retreat depot shows how Link manipulated the light to get specific effects; in one image, a man holds a lantern and the depot is partially in darkness; in another, the man is without a lantern and the depot is fully lit.

I suppose this is what makes some of the masterworks of photography so great; they can constantly be reinterpreted and rediscovered by later generations, who will see in them something different than those that came before. Old can still be both good and relevant; for those of you who have steeped yourselves in the nuances of staged contemporary photography, swing by this show to reconsider just how fresh and important O. Winston Link might be.

Collector’s POV: The works in this show are priced as follows. The black and white prints range from $10000 to $25000, with several intermediate prices ($12000, $16000, and $20000); the color images are $10000 each. Link’s work is ubiquitous in the secondary markets, with dozens of prints up for sale in any given year. Prices have generally ranged between $2000 and $28000, with Hot Shot, Eastbound, Iager, West Virginia, 1956, always near the top of that range.

My favorite image in this exhibit was NW795 Winston Link, George Thom & Night Flash Equipment, New York City, March 19, 1956; it’s on the far right in the third installation shot. It’s a spectacular portrait of Link, his assistant, and all his cameras and lighting equipment. While the train pictures are of course iconic at this point, I liked the circular patterns of the light fixtures and the tangle of tripods in this image.

Rating: * (one star) GOOD (rating system described here)

Transit Hub:

  • O. Winston Link Museum (here)
  • Feature: Photo Booth (here)

O. Winston Link: The Last Steam Railroad in America
Through March 26th
.
Robert Mann Gallery
210 Eleventh Avenue
New York, NY 10001

Mark Power, The Sound of Two Songs @Amador

JTF (just the facts): A total of 11 color and 10 black and white photographs, framed in white and unmatted and framed in black and matted respectively, and hung against cream and grey walls in the main gallery spaces. All of the color works are type c prints, made from negatives taken between 2004 and 2006. These images are available in two sizes: 20×24 (in editions of 10) and 40×50 (in editions of 5). The black and white works are gelatin silver prints, made from negatives taken between 1993 and 1996. These images are square format, printed 20×24 with detailed captions, in editions of 10. A monograph of The Sound of Two Songs was published by Photoworks in 2010 (here). A monograph of The Shipping Forecast was published by Zelda Cheatle in 1996. (Installation shots at right.)
Comments/Context: This show is a two-for-the-price-of-one opportunity to get acquainted with the work of British photographer and Magnum Photos member Mark Power. It combines his black and white work from the 1990s with more recent color images made across Poland, providing an opportunity to compare two working styles tailored to specific projects.

The images in the back gallery come from the series The Shipping Forecast, named for the BBC Radio broadcast heard daily by listeners across the UK. Each work documents a specific coastal location and time, complete with its maritime forecast (“mainly fair” or “moderate or poor becoming good”). These seaside scenes have a dark edginess: a child lies with his dump truck near lumpy mounds of sand, boys search amid cylindrical cement blocks used to bulwark the surf, grey skies envelop beach cabanas and a deserted slide, abandoned white towels are bisected by the blackness of shadows, and cemetery plots look out over the bright horizon. Places listeners have never visited suddenly have a face, and the gathering power of the weather offers a gritty sense of impending doom.

Power’s newer images of Poland find moments of quirky optimism and compositional rigor in the drab, grey Eastern European environment. Of course, there are the usual grimy apartment buildings and ugly highway sound barriers that are the staple of so much contemporary German photography. But Power seems to be drawn to the more unexpected visual contrasts and unlikely juxtapositions: a dingy elevated view of Warsaw with a pristine cloud filled blue sky straight out of a 19th century Romantic painting (almost like a LeGray two negative combination), the oddity of green tree trunks amid brick buildings, the strange metal framing of a dusty construction site entrance, the downward look at a winter skating rink (a dead ringer for Moholy-Nagy), or the bisected back view of the massive video screen used to watch the Pope’s funeral by a crowd of onlookers. These pictures are like road trip discoveries, the more unusual details of today’s Poland that get overlooked when we focus on the obvious or the stereotypical.

All in, this is a solid pairing of photographic projects, with ample evidence of both range and craft on display.
Collector’s POV: The prints in this show are priced as follows. The color images are either $3000 for the 20×24 size or $6000 for the 40×50 size. The black and white images are $3500 each. Power’s work has not been widely available in the secondary markets, so gallery retail is likely the only option for interested collectors at this point.
While I enjoyed most of the images from The Shipping Forecast series, my favorite was THAMES, Sunday, 7 January, 1996; it’s in the center of the third installation shot. I liked the apocalyptic wash of thick fog covering the lone dark figure on the beach.

Rating: * (one star) GOOD (rating system described here)

Transit Hub:
  • Artist site (here)
  • Magnum Photos page (here)
  • Review: New Yorker (here)
Through March 26th

41 East 57th Street
New York, NY 10022

Staging Action: Performance in Photography since 1960 @MoMA

JTF (just the facts): A group show of the work of 30 photographers, variously framed and matted, and hung in a two room divided gallery on the 3rd floor. Many of the works consist of multiple prints (black and white or color), either in series or sequence. The images were taken between 1960 and 2007, and many are recent acquisitions by the museum. The exhibit was curated by Roxana Marcoci and Eva Respini. (Installation shots at right.)
.
The following photographers/artists have been included in the show, with the number of works/prints on view in parentheses:

Vito Acconci (group of 12)
Bas Jan Adler (1)
Ai Weiwei (4)
Matthew Barney (1)
Gunter Brus (1)
Robert Filliou (group of 3)
Lee Friedlander (1)
Gilbert & George (1 album in case)
Eikoh Hosoe (1)
Huang Yan (group of 2)
George Maciunas (group of 5)
Ana Mendieta (group of 4)
Otto Muehl (1)
Laurel Nakadate (4)
Bruce Nauman (group of 5)
Hermann Nitsch (1)
Adrian Piper (group of 6)
William Pope.L (1)
Richard Prince (1)
Arnulf Rainer (1)
Robin Rhode (group of 28)
Rong Rong (group of 4)
Lucas Samaras (group of 18)
Rudolf Schwartzkogler (group of 9)
Cindy Sherman (1)
Mieko Shiomi (group of 8)
Lorna Simpson (group of 12)
VALIE EXPORT (group of 6)
Ben Vautier (1)
William Wegman (group of 2)
.
Comments/Context: With the widespread adoption of staging as an accepted technique of contemporary photographic practice, the unspoken elephant in the room is how we place this new trend into art historical context, and how we rationalize and categorize its many embodiments and methods into some kind of coherent whole. The questions start to multiply almost immediately:

  • Does staging inherently tie back to performance art? And if so, which kinds?
  • Or is the key beginning point the Pictures Generation? or conceptual art/photography?
  • Is this the next thematic stop beyond postmodernism?
  • Where do the teachings of Wall, Baldessari and Crewdson (among many others) fit?
  • Should photographic self-portraiture be reconsidered of as a kind of “staged performance”? Can this kind of recategorization also be done with other traditional genres?

Once you open this unwieldy can of worms, it’s hard to get it closed again, given the sheer diversity of the possible outward connections.

MoMA has been picking around the edges of this broad “performance” problem for the past few years, with the last room of the Original Copy show, the Marina Abramovic blockbuster, and now this smallish sampler. The challenge is that this is a thorny, complicated set of issues to untangle, and a simple gathering of similar photography isn’t going to get the job done; we need a careful, full bodied 6th floor explication that offers a systematic, edited line of thinking to be followed. I’m not talking about a robust history of performance art, but of a “precedents, influences, and motifs” analysis of the photographic trend in staging. To my eyes, Staging Action seems to be more of an attempt to back fill – the museum has actively been making acquisitions in this area so that more of the historical story can be told, and this show gives us glimpses of what they’ve been buying/rediscovering and the very beginnings of how they seem to be putting it all together. But it’s clearly still very much a work in progress.

One of the main difficulties faced in trying to analyze the roots of staging is the shifting definition of the “audience”. One one hand, “traditional” performance art has had actual watchers/bystanders, where the camera is merely a vehicle for documenting/recording the live action happening (often in multiple images taken in sequence). On the other hand, other forms of performance art have had no watchers/bystanders, where the camera is the only audience and is therefore enlisted into being more of a collaborator or co-conspirator; these scenes have been designed to be photographed, from elaborate sound stage ready tableaux to intimate personal moments or quirky conceptual tricks.

Staging Action slices off a diverse selection of this second group, where the camera is a willing participant in the theatrical art making, not just a mute witness. The problem with using a solely “process” centric definition is that the subject matter gets so widely dispersed: in just two rooms, we wander from body mutilation and endurance art, to gender/identity studies, to witty conceptual jokes, to political commentaries, and back again to any number of inward looking personal explorations (all the way to a Friedlander self portrait), traversing 50 years of cultural history in the process. The 1960s Vienna Actionists share the wall with Wegman and Nauman, flanked by Matthew Barney and Lorna Simpson. With such a broad scope, I could not help but wonder: why this and not that? over and over again as I looked at the selected works. In the end, my conclusion was more pedestrian: MoMA had a bunch of new acquisitions that it wanted to display and this was a relatively straightforward way to get them on the walls and signal that this line of thinking is open for active study and interpretation.
.
So I’d like to think that this show is a smart appetizer for something larger to come in years hence. What’s on display here is certainly one part of the broader discussion, but it lacks a strong point of view; it’s more a collection of “what”, rather than an exploration of “why”. We’ll get yet another related piece of the performance puzzle with the big Cindy Sherman retrospective next year, but I’m hoping that sometime soon we’ll get a comprehensive, intellectually rigorous, thought leader appropriate deconstruction of all of these merging tributaries and their relevance in the larger context of contemporary art. In many ways, it is the foundation art history problem for a significant portion of contemporary photography, and in my view, the general public is ready for a high quality argument for how it all fits together. This show compiles some of the high points, but left me wanting much more.

Collector’s POV: My favorite work in this show was the series of Rong Rong images, East Village Beijing, No. 8, 1995; it’s on the far left in the top installation shot. In each photograph, a body part wriggles to get out through a small slit/hole in a rough hewn metal panel; fingers, an ear, a nose, and a tongue each make cameo appearances trying to escape. To me, these black and white works were successful in symbolically describing a cultural environment where external stimuli (smells, sounds, tastes, etc.) are being constrained/limited, and the people inside struggle to make a connection through the tiny hole in the otherwise impervious armor.

Rating: * (one star) GOOD (rating system described here).
.
Transit Hub:

  • Reviews: NY Times (here), Brooklyn Rail (here), New Yorker (here)

Staging Action: Performance in Photography since 1960
Through May 9th

Museum of Modern Art
11 West 53rd Street
New York, NY 10019

Auction Preview: Fine Photographs, March 24, 2011 @Swann

Swann kicks off the New York Photographs spring auction season with a modest various owner sale next week. As usual, it contains a broad mix of lower end black and white material, mostly from the 20th century, with a selection of both vintage and later prints. Overall, there are 162 lots available, with a total High estimate of $1137300.

Here’s the statistical breakdown:

Total Low Lots (high estimate up to and including $10000): 143
Total Low Estimate (sum of high estimates of Low lots): $742300

Total Mid Lots (high estimate between $10000 and $50000): 19
Total Mid Estimate: $395000

Total High Lots (high estimate above $50000): 0
Total High Estimate: NA

The top lot by High estimate is lot 9, Linnaeus Tripe, Photographs of the Elliot Marbles; and Other Subjects; in the Central Museum Madras, 1858-1859, at $35000-45000.
Below is the list of photographers with 3 or more lots in the sale (with the number of lots in parentheses):
Edward Weston (9)
Berenice Abbott (6)
Ruth Bernhard (5)
Harry Callahan (5)
Ansel Adams (4)
Henri Cartier-Bresson (4)
Alfred Cheney Johnston (4)
O. Winston Link (4)
Ilse Bing (3)
Wynn Bullock (3)
Edward Curtis (3)
Mario Giacomelli (3)
Stephen Shore (3)
Weegee (3)
(Lot 101, Alma Lavenson, Union Oil Tanks, Alameda, 1931/1987, at $4000-6000, image at right, top, lot 122, Roy DeCarava, Man Coming up Subway Stairs, 1952/1996, at $10000-15000, image at right, middle, and lot 145, Jaroslav Rossler, Untitled (light study), 1947, at $3000-4500, image at right, bottom, all via Swann.)
The complete lot by lot catalog can be found here. The 3D version is located here.
March 24th
Swann Galleries
104 East 25th Street
New York, NY 10010

Auction Results: First Open Post-War and Contemporary Art, March 10, 2011 @Christie’s

Christie’s has to be happy with the results for the photography in its First Open sale last week. The overall Buy-In rate was under 10%, and every price range brought in more proceeds than its aggregate high estimate. Even without a lot of positive surprises, the auction performed well from top to bottom.

The summary statistics are below (all results include the buyer’s premium):

Total Lots: 42
Pre Sale Low Total Estimate: $757000
Pre Sale High Total Estimate: $1100000
Total Lots Sold: 38
Total Lots Bought In: 4
Buy In %: 9.52%
Total Sale Proceeds: $1158875

Here is the breakdown (using the Low, Mid, and High definitions from the preview post, here):
Low Total Lots: 13
Low Sold: 11
Low Bought In: 2
Buy In %: 15.38%
Total Low Estimate: $99000
Total Low Sold: $113500
Mid Total Lots: 24
Mid Sold: 22
Mid Bought In: 2
Buy In %: 8.33%
Total Mid Estimate: $531000
Total Mid Sold: $541875
High Total Lots: 5
High Sold: 5
High Bought In: 0
Buy In %: 0.00%
Total High Estimate: $470000
Total High Sold: $503500

The top lot by High estimate was lot 117, Thomas Struth, El Capitan (Yosemite National Park), California, 1999 at $100000-150000: it was also the top outcome of the sale at $206500.

94.74% of the lots that sold had proceeds in or above the estimate range, and there were a total of three surprises in this sale (defined as having proceeds of at least double the high estimate):

Lot 34, Louise Lawler, Chandelier, 2007, at $52500 (image at right, top, via Christie’s)

Lot 130, Gregory Crewdson, Untitled (Family Dinner), 2001-2002, at $43750 (image at right, middle, via Christie’s)
Lot 131, Peter Doig, Untitled, 2000, at $17500 (image at right, bottom, via Christie’s)
Complete lot by lot results can be found here.

20 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10020

Auction Results: Contemporary Art, March 9, 2011 @Sotheby’s

The results for the photography in Sotheby’s lower end Contemporary Art auction last week were altogether lackluster. With a Buy-In rate over 40% and just one positive surprise, it is no wonder the Total Sale Proceeds missed the low end of the range by a significant margin.

The summary statistics are below (all results include the buyer’s premium):

Total Lots: 39
Pre Sale Low Total Estimate: $497000
Pre Sale High Total Estimate: $712000
Total Lots Sold: 22
Total Lots Bought In: 17
Buy In %: 43.59%
Total Sale Proceeds: $371501
Here is the breakdown (using the Low, Mid, and High definitions from the preview post, here):

Low Total Lots: 13
Low Sold: 8
Low Bought In: 5
Buy In %: 38.46%
Total Low Estimate: $93000
Total Low Sold: $70001
Mid Total Lots: 25
Mid Sold: 13
Mid Bought In: 12
Buy In %: 48.00%
Total Mid Estimate: $559000
Total Mid Sold: $215000
High Total Lots: 1
High Sold: 1
High Bought In: 0
Buy In %: 0.00%
Total High Estimate: $60000
Total High Sold: $86500
The top photography lot by High estimate was lot 19, Cindy Sherman, Untitled #109, 1982, at $40000-60000; it was also the top outcome of the sale at $86500. (Image at right, top, via Sotheby’s.)

95.45% of the lots that sold had proceeds in or above the estimate range. There was only 1 surprise in this sale (defined as having proceeds of at least double the high estimate):

Lot 169, Shirin Neshat, I am its Secret, 1993, at $22500 (image at right, via Sotheby’s)
Complete lot by lot results can be found here.

1334 York Avenue
New York, NY 10021

Auction Results: Under the Influence, March 8, 2011 @Phillips

The proceeds for the photography in Phillips’ Under the Influence sale last week exceeded expectations, covering the high estimate with room to spare. With some help from Barbara Kruger and a low Buy-In rate (under 15%), it was a solid result all around.

The summary statistics are below (all results include the buyer’s premium):

Total Lots: 55
Pre Sale Low Total Estimate: $375000
Pre Sale High Total Estimate: $532500
Total Lots Sold: 47
Total Lots Bought In: 8
Buy In %: 14.55%
Total Sale Proceeds: $654750

Here is the breakdown (using the Low, Mid, and High definitions from the preview post, here):

Low Total Lots: 40
Low Sold: 33
Low Bought In: 7
Buy In %: 17.50%
Total Low Estimate: $215500
Total Low Sold: $238500

Mid Total Lots: 15
Mid Sold: 14
Mid Bought In: 1
Buy In %: 6.67%
Total Mid Estimate: $317000
Total Mid Sold: $416250

High Total Lots: 0
High Sold: NA
High Bought In: NA
Buy In %: NA
Total High Estimate: $0
Total High Sold: NA

The top lot by High estimate was lot 143, Vik Muniz, After Mark Rothko (from Pictures of Colors), 2001, at $30000-40000; it sold for $68500. The top outcome of the sale was lot 89, Barbara Kruger, Ohne Titel – Lust, 2001, at $92500.
82.98% of the lots that sold had proceeds in or above the estimate range. There were a total of 6 surprises in this sale (defined as having proceeds of at least double the high estimate):
Lot 77, Ryan McGinley, Dash Bombing, New York, 2000, at $20000 (image at right, top, via Phillips)
Lot 84, Katy Grannan, Untitled (from Poughukeepsie Journal), 1999, at $10000
Lot 85, Katy Grannan, Untitled (from Poughkeepsie Journal), 1999, at $11250 (image at right, bottom, via Phillips)
Lot 89, Barbara Kruger, Ohne Titel – Lust, 2001, at $92500
Lot 102, Dionisio Gonzalez, Heliopolis IV, 2006, at $8125
Lot 185, Zhang Huan, Meat and Text (from 1/2 Series), 1998, at $20000 (image at right, middle, via Phillips)
Complete lot by lot results can be found here.
New York, NY 10022
and
450 West 15th Street
New York, NY 10011

David Nadel, Burns @Sasha Wolf

JTF (just the facts): A total of 11 color photographs, framed in white and unmatted, and hung in the single room gallery space. All of the prints are archival pigment prints. The images come in two sizes: 15×12 in editions of 8, and 35×44 in editions of 6. (Installation shots at right.)

Comments/Context: David Nadel’s photographs of snow bound Montana forests reduce the landscape to a set of minimalist gestures, where charred tree trunks become dark vertical lines against the vast expanse of white. His pictures are like abstract exercises in linear geometry, executed with the delicacy of a dry point etching.
My first reaction when I entered the gallery was that these pictures were the direct descendants of Frank Gohlke’s Mount St. Helens images from the early 1980s, and they certainly share a common aesthetic of fallen trees and dense textural surfaces. What’s different here is that Nadel’s pictures are even flatter; significant depths of distance have been aligned into one skyless plane, removing the sense of scale and abstracting the mountains and valleys into white backdrops. As such, there is also some intellectual kinship to Frederick Sommer’s desert works, or some of Taiji Matsue’s elevated landscapes. Depending on Nadel’s position, the blackened trunks can look like up-close shoots of bamboo, or can be transformed into a calligraphic mix of spindly lines when seen from afar. The contrasts of thick and thin become the elements of his monochrome compositions.
At one level, there is something simple and decorative about this work; the effects of powerful burning have been softened, turned into muted line drawings. What I like better is to consider the concept of using the land as a basis for radical abstraction, and to see how different photographers have stripped away context in landscape to highlight its nuances of pattern and form.
Collector’s POV: The works on view are priced as follows: the 15×12 prints are $1200 each and the 35×44 prints are $3000 each. Nadel’s work has not yet entered the secondary markets, so gallery retail is likely the only option for interested collectors at this point.
My favorite image in the show is Burn #2; it’s on the right in the in the middle installation shot. I liked the busy right angle intersection of perpendicular lines formed by the vertical trunks and the fallen logs.
Rating: * (one star) GOOD (rating system described here)
Transit Hub:
  • Review: Wall Street Journal (here, scroll down)
Through March 26th
Sasha Wolf Gallery
528 West 28th Street
New York, NY 10001

Mariah Robertson, Hot Tropical Rain Jam @Museum 52

JTF (just the facts): A total of 5 large scale color works, framed in white and unmatted (except for the large installation which is alternately pinned to the wall and draped over a wooden rod), and hung/leaned in the small two room gallery space. All of the works are unique c-prints on metallic paper, made in 2011. The framed images are either “small” (59×74 or 81×51) or “large” (61×105 or reverse), while the installation work has dimensions of 1968×50 (if it was entirely unrolled). (Installation shots at right.)

Comments/Context: This is the third time I’ve seen Mariah Robertson’s work in the past couple of years, and each time I see it, I come away more interested in what she is doing. I attribute this increasing attention on my part to the fact that the work is a significant and radical departure from most of the current commonly held tenets of contemporary photography. It is unabashedly analog, it is process and materials centric without being perfectionist or reverently recreationist, it disregards the traditional definition of a frame (when was the last time you saw a 150 foot long photograph?), and it is mixes abstraction and representation in an unorthodox manner, overlayed with a healthy dollop of gestural expressionism. In short, it’s about as contrarian as you could get in today’s over-sharpened digital world.

I’ve been racking my brain for analogies and precedents for Robertson’s work, and all I can come up with is a mash-up of Robert Rauschenberg’s silkscreen rebuses, Hy Hirsch’s visual music stills, and any number of photogram/darkroom experimenters, executed in one long Kerouac stream of consciousness flow (I would use the word expressionist more liberally here, but I think that this particular word has recently been co-opted in a photographic sense to mean painterly Photoshop smudges, which isn’t at all what this work is about). These works juxtapose saturated color blocks, chemical splashes, spills and drips, angular geometric shapes and stripes, negative images, and laser pen scratches into one fluid and hypnotic frieze, which is either chopped up into single ideas or allowed to run free in rhythmic metallic billows.

These newer works seem slightly more exuberant and lively than the last batch I saw, perhaps a little less self-consciously mannered and a bit more chaotic; new visual ideas are being incorporated and the recipe is getting more complicated and flavorful. Overall, I think it’s still very much a work in progress, but given the risks she’s taking, the odds are getting better that she will end up somewhere durably original.

Collector’s POV: The works in this show are priced as follows. The “small” images are $14000 each, the “large” images are $16000 each, and the installation piece in the back is $30000. Robertson’s work is not readily available in the secondary markets, so gallery retail is likely the only option for interested collectors at this point.

While I certainly enjoyed many of the framed images in this exhibit, I suppose my favorite work was the big installation (9, 2011); it’s in the top installation shot. While the other works are relatively controlled, self-contained artistic thoughts, the installation has a looser, more improvisational feel that isn’t often associated with photography; yes, it’s messy, uneven, and sometimes hard to decipher, but the swirl of color and chemistry has a raw, physical energy that is surprisingly magnetic.

Rating: * (one star) GOOD (rating system described here)
Transit Hub:
  • Artist site (here)
  • Marvelli Gallery show, 2009 (DLK COLLECTION review here)
Through March 25th
4 East 2nd Street at Bowery
New York, NY 10003

Photography at the 2011 ADAA Art Show

As always, this year’s ADAA Art Show was characterized by its consistent quality from booth to booth and its extraordinarily high production values. Even though there is a wide spread of work on display in this show, the ratio of wheat to chaff is generally much higher than the other fairs. Once again, many of the exhibitors opted for solo shows or tightly edited groups of work, meticulously hung against colored walls or linen wallpaper. It’s a thoroughly sophisticated approach to an art fair; the challenge is that without a few jolts of roughness or energy, this hushed environment can lull you to sleep.
This post is organized by my path through the fair, starting to the left from the entrance, and winding back and forth before returning to the front to exit. Like our Armory posts, for each booth, a list of photographers has been provided, with the number of works on display in parentheses. Additional commentary, prices, and pictures of the installation are also included where specific images stood out.
Marian Goodman Gallery (here): Gabriel Orozco (2)
McKee Gallery (here): Richard Learoyd (1). Learoyd’s portraits are growing on me as I see them more. This one was priced at $35000.

Robert Miller Gallery (here): Diane Arbus (11)
Jill Newhouse (here): Anonymous (13). This booth was filled with Rodin sculptures and drawings, as well as quite a few photographs of his sculptures. It wasn’t clear who the photographer of record was for these images, as many were signed by Rodin himself. I particularly liked this set of three variant images. In general, the prints were reasonably priced, between $800 and $4500 each.

Zabriskie Gallery (here): Paul Strand (16). This booth was devoted to Strand, and aside from one industrial image and one Taos church, all of the works were from his garden in Orgeval, France. I very much enjoyed these two florals (look for the bees in the second one), both of which were priced at $24000.

Cheim & Read (here): Diane Arbus (1), William Eggleston (2), Walker Evans (1). The contrasts in this Evans were spectacular; however, it wasn’t for sale.

CRG Gallery (here): Lyle Ashton Harris (1), Joel-Peter Witkin (1)
Hans P. Kraus Jr. Fine Photographs (here): Bisson Freres (1), Jean Laurent (2), Felix Teynard (1), Auguste Salzmann (1), Louis-Remy Robert (2), Louis-Emile Durandelle (2), William Henry Fox Talbot (7), James Nasmyth (2), Anna Atkins (2), Louis Pierre Rousseau (1), Dr. Alfred Donne (1), Unknown (2), Edward Steichen (1), JB Greene (2), Andre Adolphe Eugene Disderi (2), James Ross and John Thomson (1), Nevil Story-Maskelyne (1), Duchenne de Boulogne and Adrien Tournachon (1), Circle of Charles Simart (1), Julia Margaret Cameron (1), Charles Marville (2). As usual, Kraus’ booth was a smorgasbord of 19th century photographic treasures. I had seen the two Atkins cyanotypes previously, so I was more intrigued by the Robert negative image, with its intersecting lines made by the cart and tools. It was priced at $60000.

Skarstedt Gallery (here): Cindy Sherman (2), Richard Prince (group of 4)
Fraenkel Gallery (here): Carleton Watkins (7), Robert Adams (10). This booth featured a smart pairing of Watkins and Adams, where echoes of land forms (rivers, masses of boulders, horizon lines, etc.) were matched together. I liked the Adams on the top left below, with its jagged shadow contrast and the hidden train track running below. The Adams images were priced between $12000 and $18000; the Watkins images were between $45000 and $190000.

Donald Young Gallery (here): Jeanne Dunning (2), James Welling (5), Rodney Graham (1 + 1 diptych), Mark Wallinger (stills on video screen)
Howard Greenberg Gallery (here): William Klein (20 + 1 video + 4 books). A brash booth full of Klein photographs was a bit of a surprise from Greenberg, which has often opted for a selection of iconic highlights in this kind of fair setting. I thought it was fresh and fantastic.

James Cohan Gallery (here): Katie Patterson (4)
Leslie Tonkonow Artworks + Projects (here): Laurel Nakadate (12)
Pace/MacGill Gallery (here): Irving Penn (20). This booth contained a selection of Penn’s innovative corner portraits, where his famous subjects have been pushed into a narrow confining space. I enjoyed the two portraits of Georgia O’Keeffe on the inside wall of the booth, but perhaps my favorite was the Truman Capote on the front wall; I liked the way the space is taken up by the chair and Capote’s large coat, and I think the introduction of the vertical line of the wall opens up the strict formula of the composition. The Capote portrait was priced at $95000.


Nicole Klagsbrun Gallery (here): Mika Rottenberg (2), Barney Kulok (1). I liked the jumble of spaces and volumes in this large Kulok image; it was priced at $6000.

Regen Projects (here): Catherine Opie (3). There is certainly an echo of Hiroshi Sugimoto or Renate Aller in these Opie seascapes and sunsets, but there’s no denying the serene lushness of the pure blue images. These were priced at $30000 each.

Sign up for our weekly email newsletter

This field is required.