Hanno Otten @Janet Borden

JTF (just the facts): A total of 13 works are hung in the main gallery space. 8 of the images are chromogenic prints, framed in white and not matted, each 16×12, printed in editions of 3, and made in 2010. There is a single large grid of 21 chromogenic prints, each image pinned to the wall under glass but not framed; the individual prints are roughly 20×15, each made in 2010, and the entire grid is printed in an edition of 3 (2 of the 3 will stay as a set of 21, while 1 will be broken up and sold as individual prints). There is also one large chromogenic print, 74×49, framed in white but not matted, printed in an edition of 3, and made in 2010. The final three works come from the period 1983-1985. These are black and white gelatin silver photograms, each unique. Two are sized 16×12, and one is much larger, at 74×49; all three are framed in white with no mat.(Installation shots at right.)

Comments/Context: Earlier today, I posted a basic, some might say rudimentary, framework for categorizing the different modes of photographic abstraction being employed by today’s contemporary artists (here). And while it may be imperfect, this intellectual scaffolding certainly makes thinking about a show like Hanno Otten’s much simpler.

Otten is not first and foremost a photographer in the limiting sense of the word; his artistic career has also spanned sculpture, painting, watercolor, video, and drawing, and in each of these forms, he has systematically explored the boundaries of how we experience color. As such, his “subject matter” isn’t anything in particular – it is complex color theory (placing him squarely in the third box in the abstraction framework diagram), and photography is just one medium for testing its limits.

All of the recent works in this exhibit are fragmented photographs of Otten’s own abstract paintings. They chop large canvases into smaller shards, where stripes and circles of color, drips of paint, and layers of brushstrokes are synthesized into indistinct, approximate blurs. While there are echoes of Mark Rothko in some, Morris Louis in others, and even Claude Monet in the organic, green grid, the experience of color is altogether unstable; the fuzzy edges and fluid intersections are in flux, as though the viewer was squinting at the images from afar. The earlier works in the show, aptly titled Real Nothings, are black and white photograms that surely belong in the process-centric box in our abstraction framework. These pared down images (often a white rectangle on a black background) require up-close attention to see the small nuances of tonal change associated with the chance drips and swirls of darkroom chemicals. By far the most striking and memorable work in the show is the 21 image grid, Im Park 1, an exuberant explosion of shimmering, layered green, with hints of blue, pink, and yellow added in different proportions. There is a little Albers theme and variation going on here, as each panel becomes a riff on other adjacent panels, and nuances of color chase each other across the array.

While not every image in this show is a standout, I enjoyed being forced to consider the properties of photographic color from a new vantage point, where the color isn’t expertly sharp by design, but where it wobbles and vacillates with airy elusiveness.

Collector’s POV: The prices for the works in this show are as follows. The large grid of 21 images is available for $16000 as a set, or $2500 apiece for individual prints from the group. The large chromogenic print is also $16000; the smaller ones are $2500 each. The older images from the 1980s are $24000 for the large photogram and $5000 each for the smaller ones. While Otten has been a successful artist for many years now, his works have very little history in the secondary market for photography; it is difficult to discern any pricing pattern with much certainty. As such, gallery retail is likely the only option for interested collectors at this point.

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

Transit Hub:

Artist site (here)

Hanno Otten

Through June 26th

Janet Borden, Inc.
560 Broadway
New York, NY 10012

Thoughts on Photographic Abstraction

In the past year or so, abstraction in contemporary photography has become an increasingly hot topic (I’ll be reviewing yet another show of abstract work later today). And yet, so far, I haven’t been able to find a simple, all-encompassing framework for understanding how it all fits together; the word “abstract” gets thrown around in so many different ways and contexts that it’s easy to lose sight of its actual meaning. The big show at Aperture, the various smaller shows (Michael Mazzeo, Laurence Miller, MCNY etc.), and the recent article by Matthew Witkovsky in Artforum have all added to the discussion, but have failed in my mind to provide a clarifying context (historical or otherwise) for the multiplicity of what is occurring.

My brain works in a relatively structured and analytical way. The ugly PowerPoint diagram below started out as a quick list of the various kinds of photographic abstraction that are being employed, and later evolved into some rough groupings of like approaches.

I’d like to think this diagram is pretty self-explanatory, but let me add a few comments and nuances:

Sometimes we use the word “abstract” to identify a challenging conceptual idea, a recontextualization of a known subject, or an obscure, indefinite, or sometimes incomprehensible meaning. This type of abstraction/disconnection is all captured in the box on the far left.
“Abstraction” that is the result of the careful paring down of the visual system into fragments and patterns of line, form, color and shape is what I refer to in the second box. This can be accomplished with “captured” imagery from life or “constructed” imagery (analog or digital). Sometimes this form of abstraction contains a hint of narrative, sometimes not. Brandt’s nudes, Siskind’s walls, Eggleston’s color vignettes, they all fit here; categories like Modernist abstraction, urban abstraction, natural abstraction or abstracted landscape all go here as well.
The third box represents a strain of abstraction that is wholly interested in the technical subtleties of visual perception, and how the camera’s eye “sees” differently than the human eye does. This includes elements of 2D/3D distortion, surface flattening, color theory, tilt-shift, and optical illusions, and can again be built from recognizable objects or non-representational content. While one might consider there to be some overlap with the previous category (and there is, it’s not as cut and dried as anyone would like), I think this category is defined mostly by mindset and artistic objective. Much of photoconceptualism that is “abstract” fits in this box.
The final group consists of those images centered entirely on the process of creating the art object, with no regard for representation. This can be done with a camera or without, in a darkroom or on a computer, using a highly controlled or largely chance-driven approach. Technical details, physical surface treatments, chemical combinations, and Photoshop tricks can and do all come into play. We often see connections to painting in these works, as they are derived from the artist’s mind and craft, not captured from life outside in the traditional photographic manner.
There is no temporal progression here. All of these modes of abstraction are being pursued simultaneously at this point.

While this little diagram is obviously reductive and perhaps overly simplistic, it has at least helped to organize the muddle of photographic abstraction that has been cluttering up my head. If there are ways to improve it or whole categories I have missed, please do add them in the comments.

Lucien Clergue @Throckmorton

JTF (just the facts): A total of 35 black and white photographs, framed in thick black and matted, and hung in the elevator lobby and main gallery space (divided by several linen interior walls). All of the works are gelatin silver prints, ranging in size from 8×10 to 20×24. The prints are a mix of vintage and later prints, taken between 1955 and 2009, and mostly printed in editions of 30. (Installation shots at right.)

Comments/Context: The French photographer Lucien Clergue is probably best known for his sculptural and sensual female nudes, often taken in the foam of the sea (like the Greek goddess Aphrodite), at the place where the water meets the sand. This exhibit brings together a variety of his work from several decades, including many nudes partially immersed in the sparkling surf and others covered by striped shadows, as well as a handful of portraits of Picasso and images of matadors and bullfights.

I think nudes are one of the most difficult subjects to get just right, and each viewer will have his or her own personal definitions of what is graceful, or tasteful, or altogether too much. To my eye, Clergue’s nudes walk the knife edge. While I can certainly appreciate the photographer’s craft in the making of these images, a few too many cross some invisible line for me into the realm of the posed and artificial. Some do have a simple and refined elegance, but many more fall into the slightly overdone and all-too-obvious, as if Weston’s nudes were over amplified into a more full bodied and sometimes almost campy cliche.

Clergue clearly sees the body as natural landscape, where undulations and curves can be used compostionally. Whether covered by a veil of water or dappled by zebra-striped shadows coming through window blinds, the rounded forms of breasts, legs and bottoms sinuously rise and fall, creating lines and forms that look like hills and valleys. His meticulous use of contrasts, of highlights and deep shadows, gives Clergue yet another set of tools to expand the traditional vocabulary of the nude. All in, I came away impressed with Clergue’s consistent execution, but still have lingering doubts about his eye and its likely overlap with our own sense of nude aesthetics.

Collector’s POV: The prints in this show range in price from $3500 to $8500, driven both by size and print date (vintage/later). Clergue’s work is generally available at auction, with typical selling prices between $1000 and $5000.

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

Transit Hub:

Exhibit: UCR/California Museum of Photography, 1997 (here)

Lucien Clergue

Through July 3rd

Throckmorton Fine Art
145 East 57th Street

New York, NY 10022

Is Anyone Trying to Lead the Conversation?

Quick! Who is the most influential thought leader in the world of contemporary photography? Who is spotting the trends as they are happening? Who is taking risks and making a case for what’s really important (and what’s not)? If you’re like me, even with a bit of time for reflection, you’re utterly unable to come up with even a single name that can be defended as consistently (or successfully) trying to frame the discussion of what’s going on in contemporary fine art photography. Why is this?

This is a question that I have been mulling over for the past few months, and I was reminded of it once again when I read Peter Schjeldahl’s review of a biography of Leo Castelli in the recent issue of the New Yorker (here). Schjeldahl writes: “Castelli altered a situation in which critics and curators had wielded guiding authority. He became, effectively, the scene’s predominant critic.”

So who is contemporary photography’s predominant critic? I suppose the last person to have so much control over the narrative of photography (contemporary or otherwise) was John Szarkowski. But if we look back at the last twenty years (1990-2010), I can’t seem to come up with any individual since whose voice has been as strong and authoritative as his was. Whether his preferences and choices were in the end the “right” ones, he undeniably had a point of view and a platform from which to broadcast it to a large audience.

So I started to consider where I might look for the potential leaders of today’s photography discussion, those who have stepped out of the crowd and stood alone with their opinions. Even if we might not have any omniscient, far reaching voices, there are clearly those who are making choices, tacitly separating winners and losers on a daily basis. In theory, such people would likely come from one of a small handful of occupations/groups. Absent overt and explicit statements (i.e. “Contemporary Photographer X is durably important, while Contemporary Photographer Y is not”), of which there are very few (if any) these days, all we can do is infer points of view from their public choices and omissions.

So let’s examine the possibilities. Rather than naming names, I’m going to come at this more abstractly for the most part, in the form of direct questions that I think we ought to be asking. The most obvious location in which to search for thought leadership is amidst the ranks of the museum curators. So:

Which museum curator (major institution or not) has put on the most influential set of contemporary photography exhibitions in the past decade?
Which has written the most memorable catalog essays in support of key contemporary photographers?
Who has actually taken a single contemporary photographer and championed him/her to the rest of the community?
Who has considered larger thematic issues/topics in the current medium (like the recent “Is Photography Over?” symposium at the SFMOMA)
In short, who has “shown their cards” and taken a position in favor of certain artists or modes of photographic expression, rather than taking the politically correct route of “it’s all good”?

Another stakeholder with a strong point of view in this discussion is the photographer/artist him/herself, via efforts in writing, active participation in the community of artists, and teaching. So:

Which working photographers have meaningfully participated in the discussion of contemporary photography and its future? Who speaks out, voices public opinions and/or truth tells?
Which have created “movements” or groups of followers/emulators who are working in a similar style or approach?

I think the gallery owner/director is an under appreciated source of control of the contemporary photography narrative; the Castelli example above is yet another reminder of how gallery owners can influence the direction of what’s important and what’s not. While supply of top contemporary photographers is scarce/limited (not everyone can represent the same artists), I think it is safe to assume that gallery owners represent work they believe in and are willing to champion, or at least work they think they can sell. While there are clearly different economic models in use (from international mega-galleries to small single geography dealers), I think the composition of the gallery stable (and which bodies of work are shown from the gallery artists) is the single most important way to judge how the gallery owner sees the market in which he/she is participating. I’ve been kicking this idea around in my head for a few weeks and doing some background work to see what the major NY stables actually look like in terms of their contemporary photography (and what those stables might mean in terms of implied thought leadership); more to come on this later in the summer.

I’ve lumped critics, writers, art historians, magazine editors, and book publishers all into one big group, as I think there are some commonalities to how they influence the contemporary photography conversation. So:

Which critics, writers or historians have memorably covered and analyzed the most important events in recent contemporary photography?
Which have taken a stand in support of a single photographer, defended a mode of expression, or identified an important trend in the contemporary medium?
What choices have editors and publishers made in terms of which contemporary photographers got coverage/book deals?
Who has published the most important contemporary photography books of the past decade?
Which articles, essays and monographs have meaningfully altered or reinforced the trajectory of contemporary photography?

This short post unfortunately offers no answers to these many questions, only a framework to think about how to discover who the silent leaders in contemporary photography might actually be, so we can encourage them to step out into the light even more. In our always-on digital world, the number of individual voices has multiplied exponentially, but the noise is drowning out the signal. More than ever, we need intelligent, thoughtful, opinionated guides for this journey through contemporary photography.

You know who you are out there. Now is the time to stop being so polite and start molding this amorphous lump of clay into something recognizable.

Auction Preview: Signature Fine Art Photography, June 9, 2010 @Heritage

Heritage’s photography sale in Dallas later this week (online bidding is already open) is a selection of mostly lower priced material, all with starting bids at half the Low estimate. Ritts, Mapplethorpe, Penn, and Avedon are among the top lots. All in, there are a total of 202 photography lots on offer, with a Total High Estimate of $732400. (Catalog cover at right, via Heritage.)

Here’s the breakdown:

Total Low Lots (high estimate up to and including $10000): 190
Total Low Estimate (sum of high estimates of Low lots): $420400

Total Mid Lots (high estimate between $10000 and $50000): 11
Total Mid Estimate: $262000

Total High Lots (high estimate above $50000): 1
Total High Estimate: $50000

The top lot by High estimate is lot 74167, Herb Ritts, Stephanie, Cindy, Christy, Tatjana, Naomi, Hollywood, 1989, at $30000-50000. (Image at right, via Heritage.)

Here is the list of the photographers who are represented by three or more lots in the sale (with the number of lots in parentheses):

Michael Kenna (16)
George Hurrell (13)
Garry Winogrand (10)
Harry Callahan (9)
Alfred Eisenstaedt (6)
Jacques Lowe (6)
Hank O’Neal (6)
Bert Stern (6)
Horace Bristol (5)
Alfred Cheney Johnston (5)
Philippe Halsman (4)
Arthur Rothstein (4)
Bruce Barnbaum (3)
John Florea (3)
Robert Freeman (3)
Horst P. Horst (3)
Jacques Henri Lartigue (3)
Robert Mapplethorpe (3)
Helmut Newton (3)

The complete lot by lot catalog can be found here.

Signature Fine Art Photography Auction
June 9th

Heritage Auctions
Design District Annex
1518 Slocum Street
Dallas, TX 75207

Man Ray, Paris @Houk

JTF (just the facts): A total of 30 black and white works, variously framed and matted, and hung in the entry and main gallery space. All of the works are vintage gelatin silver prints, made between 1917 and 1947, with the vast majority made in the 1920s and 1930s. The prints range in size from a small 2 inch diameter circle (a portrait of Lee Miller) to larger, roughly 11×9 works. (Installation shots at right.)

Comments/Context: While the recent Man Ray retrospective at the Jewish Museum (linked below) covered the artist’s long and prolific career in broad strokes, this tight show travels some of the less frequented back roads of his best years in Paris, uncovering a wealth of lesser known but equally startling avant–garde photographs. In many ways, this period was Man Ray’s most innovative, when he was at the height of his creative powers (at least photographically), and given the strong demand for his works from this time, this deep gathering of top quality examples is all the more impressive.

The show covers a wide range of subject matter and technique: unexpected abstract rayographs, nudes (both male and female), solarizations, and a large collection of excellent portraits (Breton, Joyce, Duchamp et al.). I particularly enjoyed seeing the face of Max Ernst fragmented by broken glass, as well as the small nudes of Meret Oppenheim. The two versions of the portrait of Dora Maar, one with a dark background, the other with a more intense, solarized/negative effect, show how Man Ray was experimenting with combining different visual ideas – the outcome is a classic of Surrealism.

Overall, this is a solid collection of hard to find Man Ray rarities, each the result of a heady process of inventive exploration and visionary speculation.

Collector’s POV: There are lots of big prices on display in this show, with plenty of prints marked NFS as well. For the most part, the prices range from $32000 to $165000, with two outliers, one at $370000 (the starfish rayograph) and one at a jaw-dropping $950000 (Dora Maar).

Man Ray’s photographs are consistently available at auction. Lesser known works and later prints can be as inexpensive as $3000-5000, while his more mainstream pieces typically range between $10000 and $40000. Vintage rayographs and iconic works, when they infrequently appear, have stretched between $100000 and $450000.

Rating: ** (two stars) VERY GOOD (rating system described here)

Transit Hub:

Review: New Yorker (here)
Feature: NPR (here)
Alias Man Ray: The Art of Reinvention, Jewish Museum, 2009 (DLK COLLECTION review here)

Man Ray, Paris

Through June 26th

Edwynn Houk Gallery

745 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10151

Marina Abramović, Personal Archaeology @Sean Kelly

JTF (just the facts): A total of 18 works, including photographs, videos, and a mixed media wood cabinet, displayed in the two front rooms and the main gallery space in the back. There are 15 photographic works (a mix of color and black and white), generally framed in black and not matted. The photographic prints have been made using a variety of processes (often with an accompanying page of text/instructions): gelatin silver, cibachrome, chromogenic, archival pigment, and color lambda. They have been printed in various edition sizes, ranging from 3+2 to 18+9. Individual prints range in size from 24×20 to 86×65, with one multi-panel work measuring 49×286. The photographs were taken between 1973 and 2009, with many of the prints made more recently. The videos were made in 2010, and the mixed media cabinet is from 1997/1999. (Installation shots at right.)

Comments/Context: You’d have to have been living under a rock, off the grid, to have missed the continuous media frenzy surrounding Marina Abramović’s recent performance/retrospective, which closed earlier this week at the MoMA. In the self-referential art world, for the past month or two, it’s been all Abramović, all the time. This exhibition at Sean Kelly is the obligatory paired selling show, offering those who have been inspired at the museum an opportunity to follow-up on their interest in the artist’s varied work.
.
Having watched Abramović performing her 700+ hour marathon in the atrium a couple of times during its long run, I have to say that I now have an entirely different perspective on the photographic documentation of performance art. Perhaps a decade or two hence, in a gallery somewhere, there will be photographs of Abramović, in one of her long flowing robes (blue, red, or white), her braid pulled to one side, staring intently ahead at the random visitor seated opposite her. To someone who hasn’t seen the performance in person, these images will look like a symmetrical, perhaps conceptual pairing of people in chairs, with a table in between or not (this changed during the course of the performance), in an otherwise empty space. But those future viewers will have a hard time understanding how powerful this piece really was, even if there are paired portraits of Abramović’s steely gaze and those of her respective partners. The photographs likely just won’t do it justice, but perhaps there will be collectors and museums who will still want these imperfect representations, as they will be all that remains of a surprisingly historic and moving but otherwise ephemeral event.
.
Which brings me back to the photographs on view in this specific show. Having not witnessed the many performances of Abramović’s ground-breaking career, I was left wondering how the photographs on these walls captured (or not) the essence of what had actually transpired long ago. I didn’t see her carve a star into her belly, slam knives between her fingers, carry a skeleton, or mop the floor, so I don’t really know if these photographs depict the nuanced reality of what occurred or not. As such, I was forced to evaluate the pictures in a different way, as objects in and of themselves, on their merits as stand alone artworks, rather than snapshots or souvenirs of something crazy and challenging that happened decades before.
.
When seen from this vantage point, these photographs become something altogether different I think. In general, they are images of a statuesque and often beautiful woman in a variety of strange and unsettling staged circumstances. At some points, they verge on the surreal, at others, physical danger lurks in the background, but if you don’t know the stories, the “film stills” which should be eerily personal seem oddly disconnected.
.
The combination of seeing Abramović perform live at the MoMA and seeing these photographs hung in this gallery left we with the strong, lightbulb-over-the-head-like realization that photographs of performance art are a paltry substitute for the real thing. They’re likely the best (or perhaps only) way for performance artists to make a living off of their performances, so this photographic documentation method isn’t going away any time soon, and they’re a decent way to help remember the obvious high points. But I came away from these two shows with the palpable feeling that these photographs are missing the most important quality of performance art: the hit-you-in-the gut, blast of energy that comes from seeing an artist out there on the edge. In a certain way, as an advertisement for the transformative power of performance art, Abramović could hardly have been more successful.
.
Collector’s POV: The photographs in this show range in price from $30000 to $150000. Abramović’s work has not been regularly available in the photography secondary markets; perhaps it has been more readily accessible in the contemporary art auctions, I don’t entirely know. The historical prices I was able to discover have ranged between $4000 and $30000, but these may not include works sold outside the strict definition of the “photography” market, so take this data with a degree of skepticism when matching it against the gallery prices above. Given the excitement surrounding the MoMA show, her prices are certainly going to be rising.
.
Rating: * (one star) GOOD (rating system described here)

Transit Hub:

Exhibit: The Artist Is Present, 2010, MoMA (here)
MoMA reviews: NY Times (here and here)
Interview: WSJ (here)
Marina Abramović Made Me Cry (here)
Roundup: Hyperallergic (here)

Marina Abramović
Through June 19th

Sean Kelly Gallery
528 West 29th Street
New York, NY 10001

Auction Results: Photobooks, May 21, 2010 @Christie’s South Kensington

The results of the recent Photobooks sale at Christie’s in London were considerably stronger than the other photography-related book sales this season. While I don’t have access to historical photobook auction records, according to Christie’s, the inscribed Frank (at right) likely set a record for a regularly-published (not special or limited edition) postwar book, fetching a hefty £43250. Photobooks by Henri Cartier-Bresson and Richard Prince also soared to big prices (see below). Overall, the buy-in rate was solid (just under 28%) and the total sale proceeds covered the total High estimate.

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

Total Lots: 136
Pre Sale Low Total Estimate: £235900
Pre Sale High Total Estimate: £347400
Total Lots Sold: 98
Total Lots Bought In: 38
Buy In %: 27.94%
Total Sale Proceeds: £353442

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

Low Total Lots: 38
Low Sold: 27
Low Bought In: 11
Buy In %: 28.95%
Total Low Estimate: £26000
Total Low Sold: £32165

Mid Total Lots: 88
Mid Sold: 64
Mid Bought In: 24
Buy In %: 27.27%
Total Mid Estimate: £202400
Total Mid Sold: £187752

High Total Lots: 10
High Sold: 7
High Bought In: 3
Buy In %: 30.00%
Total High Estimate: £119000
Total High Sold: £133525

The top lot by High estimate was lot 265 (the cover lot), Emmet Gowin, Concerning America and Alfred Stieglitz, and Myself, 1965, at £18000-25000; it sold for £39650. The top outcome of the sale was lot 261, Robert Frank, The Americans, 1959, at £43250. (Image at right, top, via Christie’s.)

A perfect 100.00% of the lots that sold had proceeds in or above their estimate. There were a total of 14 surprises in this sale (defined as having proceeds of at least double the high estimate):
.
Lot 220, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Images á la sauvette – The Decisive Moment, 1952, at £13750
Lot 224, Vilem Ambrosi, Vira v dobre dilo, c1935, at £1250
Lot 236, André Kertész, Day of Paris, 1945, at £1750
Lot 241, Munka, A mi életünkböl – A Munka elsö fotókönyve, 1932, at £6250
Lot 251, Vladimir Vlcek, Dnesni Moskva – Today’s Moscow, 1947, at £1500
Lot 254, El Lissitzky, Man Ray, Moholy-Nagy, and others, Broom, 1922/1923, at £2250
Lot 261, Robert Frank, The Americans, 1959, at £43250
Lot 273, Horst P. Horst, Photographs of a Decade, 1944, at £7500
Lot 294, New Topographics, Photographs of a Man-Altered Landscape, 1975, at £1875
Lot 297, Gilles Peress, Telex Persan – Telex Iran, 1984, at £5000
Lot 299, Photomontage, Frente Popular Antifascista, c1938, at £2250
Lot 301, Richard Prince, Adult Comedy Action Drama, 1995, at £15000
Lot 320, Jacques Thevoz, Fribourg et d’autres choses, 1970, at £2000
Lot 330, James Wedge, The James Wedge Book, 1972, at £1500

Complete lot by lot results can be found here.

Christie’s
85 Old Brompton Road
London SW7 3LD

Helmar Lerski, Transformations Through Light @UBU

JTF (just the facts): A total of 88 black and white photographs, framed in black and matted, and hung against white walls in the entry/upstairs gallery and the larger downstairs space (separated by an angled dividing wall). All of the works are vintage gelatin silver prints, made between 1912 and 1944. The prints range in size from roughly 9×7 to 12×9. Unfortunately, no photography was allowed in the galleries, so there are no installation shots for this exhibit. (Eye Opened from Transformations of Light, Series No. 588, c 1936, at right, via UBU Gallery website.)

There are 23 images upstairs and 65 images downstairs, divided into five subject matter/thematic categories:

Verwandlungen des Lichts (Transformations Through Light)
Köpfe des Alltags (Everyday Faces)
Jüdische Köpfe (Jewish Faces)
Arabische Köpfe (Arabic Faces)
Menschliche Hände (Human Hands)

Comments/Context: Helmar Lerski’s tightly cropped photographic portraits have an unusual patina that most resembles the look of sculptural bronze. His close-up, full frame faces and hands are lit with a mixture of natural, artificial, and reflected light, creating unlikely shines, shadows and highlights that appear almost buffed and etched.

While Lerski’s subjects come from a variety of ethnic and cultural groups and backgrounds (taken in systematic series), each deadpan sitter has been transformed into a kind of heroic historical figure by the intense attention paid to his or her facial features. Often the faces are seen in angled profile or looking away, and a few of the subjects return again and again, the repetition enabling a multi-image mapping exercise of the weathered topography of a single face. Skin textures run the gamut from the furrows of dry, aged wrinkles, to the smooth perfection of youth or the greasy, oily glare of a sweaty brow. A whole wall in the downstairs gallery is taken up by detailed close-ups of hands, the fingers searching and intertwined in various tasks, working with pencils or playing instruments.

What is most exciting about Lerski’s portraits is how they seem to balance an avant–garde aesthetic with a timeless, universal quality of humanity. At their best, these images take specific individuals and turn them into powerful symbols and archetypes, capable of transcending their own personal circumstances to tell stories that are relevant to all.

Collector’s POV: The images in this exhibition are not available for individual sale. According to a gallery representative, the whole collection is for sale as one unit for approximately $1.5M. Lerski’s prints haven’t come up for auction much in recent years; the few lots that have sold have ranged in price between $2000 and $14000, but given the small sample size, this may not be entirely representative of the actual market for his work. (Arab, No. 375, c 1930s, at right, via UBU Gallery website.)

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

Transit Hub:

Reviews: New Yorker (here), New York Photo Review (here), Horses Think (here)

Helmar Lerski, Transformations Through Light
Through June 25th

UBU Gallery

416 East 59th Street

New York, NY 10022

David Goldblatt, Particulars @Greenberg

JTF (just the facts): A total of 20 black and white photographs, framed in white and matted, and hung against light brown walls in the main gallery space. The square format gelatin silver prints are each roughly 20×20, and have been printed in editions of 8 or 15. Nearly all of the works were made in Johannesburg in 1975 (one was made in 1982 and a few were taken in other locations); the prints were made more recently (“printed later”). An unrelated group of thirteen 1930’s vintage prints by Henri Cartier-Bresson is on view in the book alcove. (Installation shots at right.)

Comments/Context: With the big shows at the New Museum last year and the Jewish Museum right now (both linked below), it would be easy to conclude that New York has had plenty of chances to get up to speed on the work of South African photographer David Goldblatt, and that therefore, this smaller gallery show (unbelievably, his first gallery show ever in New York) would be one to pass by. Think again. Rather than opting for a”one of everything” mini-retrospective selling show, Howard Greenberg has smartly chosen to focus on a single, tightly edited photographic project and show it in more depth. It’s a compelling, self-contained body of work (no pun intended), highlighting the more intimate and personal side of Goldblatt’s photography.

The images themselves are all up-close, frame filling fragments of bodies: legs and feet dangling from park benches, folded arms, hands resting in laps, and limbs splayed on the grass. Goldblatt has a sharp eye for detail and proportion, for bulges of clothing, textures of fabric, and the small signifiers of age and class found in jewelry, hairstyle, shoes, or the cut of a suit. Like all of his work, these pictures document the cultural mix of black and white that is embedded in everyday existence in South Africa, but without taking sides; a broad spectrum of skin colors and economic conditions can be found in these chopped up forms.

The prints themselves bear all the hallmarks of masterful black and white craftsmanship, especially in their tactile contrasts of tonality: the deep black of a coat sits atop spiky silver grass, a hairy chest peeks out from a dark shirt, and wrinkled black hands cradle a warm glow. Image to image along the wall, it’s a consistently impressive display of compositional control. So while the massive museum shows are doing a respectable job of educating us about the broad sweep of David Goldblatt’s many talents and long photographic career, don’t miss the chance to get beyond the big picture, to get down a step further into a more comprehensive look at his elegant and original approach to a commonplace subject.

Collector’s POV: The later prints in this show are all priced at $6000 each. Goldblatt’s work has not been widely available in the secondary markets in recent years, so it’s difficult to discern much of an overall pricing pattern for his prints. David Goldblatt is also represented by Goodman Gallery in Johannesburg (here). As an aside, I think Goldblatt’s up-close bodies will appeal to those who like the abstraction of Bill Brandt’s nudes; Goldblatt’s images are cripser and less distorted, but are in many ways rooted in the same geometries of human line and form.

Rating: ** (two stars) VERY GOOD (rating system described here)

Transit Hub:

Artist site (here)
Book: Particulars (here)
Jewish Museum, 2010 (here)
Intersections Intersected, New Museum, 2009 (here); Reviews: DLK COLLECTION (here), New Yorker (here), NY Times (here)
2006 Hasselblad Award (here)
1998 MoMA exhibit (here)

David Goldblatt, Particulars
Through June 12th

Howard Greenberg Gallery
41 East 57th Street
New York, NY 10022

Auction Results: Photographs, May 20, 2010 @Bonhams London

The results of the recent Photographs sale at Bonhams in London were generally muted, with a buy-in rate over 40% and total sale proceeds that missed the estimate range by a decent margin. In an otherwise uneventful sale, André Villers’ images of Picasso all sold above their High estimates.

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

Total Lots: 137
Pre Sale Low Total Estimate: £304500
Pre Sale High Total Estimate: £490400
Total Lots Sold: 81
Total Lots Bought In: 56
Buy In %: 40.88%
Total Sale Proceeds: £241320

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

Low Total Lots: 109
Low Sold: 68
Low Bought In: 41
Buy In %: 37.61%
Total Low Estimate: £219400
Total Low Sold: £150120

Mid Total Lots: 27
Mid Sold: 13
Mid Bought In: 14
Buy In %: 51.85%
Total Mid Estimate: £236000
Total Mid Sold: £91200

High Total Lots: 1
High Sold: 0
High Bought In: 1
Buy In %: 100.00%
Total High Estimate: £35000
Total High Sold: £0

The top lot by High estimate was lot 125, Thomas Ruff, Porträt (V. Liebermann), 1998, at £25000-35000; it did not sell. The top outcome of the sale was tied between lot 47, André Villers, Picasso Popeye, Cannes, 1957/1989, and lot 137, Hiroshi Sugimoto, Satellite Tower City, 2002, both at £12600.

78.57% of the lots that sold had proceeds in or above their estimate. There were a total of 7 surprises in this sale (defined as having proceeds of at least double the high estimate):

Lot 10, Grace Robertson, On the Caterpillar, London Women’s Pub Outing (Clapham), 1956/Later, at £1920
Lot 18, Thurston Hopkins, Keeping Warm, Islington, London, 1950/Later, at £3600
Lot 25, Wolfgang Suschitzky, Charing Cross Road from No. 84 (Marks and Co.), 1937/Later, at £1920
Lot 26, Wolfgang Suschitzky, Embankment, London, 1947/Later, at £1920
Lot 46, André Villers, Picasso, Cannes, 1958/1989, at £3120
Lot 47, André Villers, Picasso Popeye, Cannes, 1957/1989, at £12600
Lot 48, André Villers, Picasso with revolver and hat of Gary Cooper, 1958/1989, at £7200 (image at right, top, via Bonhams)

Complete lot by lot results can be found here.

Bonhams
101 New Bond Street
London W1S 1SR

Auction Results: Photographs, May 21, 2010 @Christie’s South Kensington

The results of the recent Photographs sale at Christie’s in London were surprisingly strong, with all 44 lots from the Norman Hall collection finding buyers (many at unexpectedly high prices) and several Irving Penns jumping well above their estimates. Overall, the buy-in rate was low (just over 10%) and the total sale proceeds covered the total High estimate with plenty of room to spare.

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

Total Lots: 111
Pre Sale Low Total Estimate: £552900
Pre Sale High Total Estimate: £797500
Total Lots Sold: 98
Total Lots Bought In: 13
Buy In %: 11.71%
Total Sale Proceeds: £966013

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

Low Total Lots: 67
Low Sold: 58
Low Bought In: 9
Buy In %: 13.43%
Total Low Estimate: £173500
Total Low Sold: £198688

Mid Total Lots: 37
Mid Sold: 35
Mid Bought In: 2
Buy In %: 5.41%
Total Mid Estimate: £404000
Total Mid Sold: £571700

High Total Lots: 7
High Sold: 5
High Bought In: 2
Buy In %: 28.57%
Total High Estimate: £220000
Total High Sold: £195625

The top lot by High estimate was lot 47, Gustave Le Gray, View across the Nile, 1867, at £30000-40000; it sold for £51650. The top outcome of the sale was lot 59, Irving Penn, Pompier, Paris, 1950/1967 at £87650. (Image at right, top, via Christie’s.)

86.73% of the lots that sold had proceeds in or above their estimate. There were 19 surprises in this sale (defined as having proceeds of at least double the high estimate):

Lot 1, Jean-Philippe Charbonnier, Casino de Paris, 1960, at £2375
Lot 2, Robert Doisneau, Hommages Respectueux, Concert Mayol, Paris, 1952, at £3750
Lot 5, Brassaï, Self-Portrait, c1955, at £8125
Lot 7, Willy Ronis, Self-Portrait, 1951, at £7500
Lot 21, Guido Mangold, Jacqueline Kennedy, 1963, at £4375
Lot 22, Aart Klein, Urban landscapes 1-3, c1960, at £4625
Lot 25, Bill Brandt, Nude, London, 1953, at £6000
Lot 30, Cecil Beaton, Lady Aberconway’s cat, Antonia, Bodnat, 1950, at £2250
Lot 31, Cecil Beaton, Basket maker, Corsica, c1938, at £2125
Lot 35, David Chim Seymour, Spanish Civil War, Extremadura, 1936, at £2500
Lot 36, Werner Bischof, Meiji Jingu, 1951, at £4000
Lot 37, Jean-Philippe Charbonnier, Kuwait, 1955, at £3000
Lot 38, Ara Güler, Erdine, Turkey, 1956, at £4375 (image at right, via Christie’s)
Lot 40, Brett Weston, Self-portrait, 1956, at £5625
Lot 59, Irving Penn, Pompier, Paris, 1950/1967, at £87650
Lot 60, Irving Penn, Workman, London, 1950/1970, at £43250
Lot 65, Irving Penn, Nude 151, 1945-1950/1976, at £13750

Lot 67, Helmut Newton, Sumo, 1999, at £6250

Lot 69, Helmut Newton, Self-portrait with wife and models, 1981/1984, at £20000

Complete lot by lot results can be found here.

Christie’s
85 Old Brompton Road
London SW7 3LD

Sign up for our weekly email newsletter