Roy DeCarava Dies

Roy DeCarava, the pioneering and influential African-American photographer, died on Tuesday at the age of 89. DeCarava made dark, shadowy images of the day-to-day lives of Harlem residents and local jazz musicians at work. His photographs were in many ways the first to accurately capture authentic, warm moments from within the community, in contrast to the more sociological studies that had been taken of the neighborhood and its culture by outsiders. (Sun and Shade, 1952, at right, via Corcoran)

After a decent amount of searching, I have been unable to locate the gallery that consistently represents DeCarava’s work/estate, so please add it to the comments if you know the answer.

DeCarava’s luscious prints (full of deep, tactile blacks and dark greys) have only been intermittently available in the secondary markets in the past five years; prices have ranged between $5000 and $25000. DeCarava’s book The Sweet Flypaper of Life, 1955, (a collaboration with Langston Hughes) has also become highly collectible.

Obituaries: NY Times (here), LA Times (here), Lens (here), Looking Around (here)

Auction Preview: Photographs, November 10, 2009 @Bonhams

Bonhams‘ various owner Photographs sale begins the string of auctions in November that bridge from New York to London, Paris, Berlin and beyond. The sale has a heavy dose of lesser known Ansel Adams images, along with a generally lower end mix of material lacking in major star power. If the turnout is soft, there should be some bargains here. Overall, there are 151 photographs on offer, with a total High estimate of $969300. (Catalog cover at right, via Bonhams.)

Here’s the breakdown:

Total Low Lots (high estimate up to and including $10000): 136
Total Low Estimate (sum of high estimates of Low lots): $660300

Total Mid Lots (high estimate between $10000 and $50000): 14
Total Mid Estimate: $219000

Total High Lots (high estimate above $50000): 1
Total High Estimate: $90000

The top lot by High estimate is lot 112 (also the cover lot) Edward Weston, Nude (Charis, Santa Monica), 1936, at $70000-90000.

Below is the list of photographers represented by at least 3 lots in the sale (with the number of lots in parentheses):

Ansel Adams (20)
Edward Curtis (6)
Horst P. Horst (6)
Andre Kertesz (6)
Jacques Henri Lartigue (6)
Robert Doisneau (5)
Julius Shulman (5)
Brett Weston (5)
Joel-Peter Witkin (5)
Manuel Alvarez-Bravo (4)
Ruth Bernhard (4)
Walker Evans (4)
O. Winston Link (4)
Berenice Abbott (3)
Rene Burri (3)

Beyond the cover lot, there really aren’t any great fits for our collection in this sale.

The complete lot by lot catalog can be found here.

Photographs
November 10th

Bonhams
580 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022

New Photography 2009 @MoMA

JTF (just the facts): A group show of the work of six contemporary photographers, variously framed, and hung in a two room divided gallery on the 3rd floor. The exhibit was curated by Eva Respini. (Installation shots at right.)

The following photographers have been included in the show, with the number of works on view in parentheses:
  • Walead Beshty (4), all from 2008
  • Daniel Gordon (4), from 2008 and 2009
  • Leslie Hewitt (6 as 3 works), from 2002-2008
  • Carter Mull (5), from 2008 and 2009
  • Sterling Ruby (4), from 2005-2007
  • Sara VanDerBeek (4 as 1 work), all from 2006

Comments/Context: This year’s New Photography exhibit at the MoMA takes us far out beyond the traditional boundaries of conventional straight documentation, and emphatically declares that the museum’s 21st century definition of “photography” will be broad and inclusive.
.
I actually believe that this definitional discussion is long overdue and much needed at this point in the medium’s history. Since the beginning of photography, there have always been subcultures of artists who rejected the sharp reality of what a camera could capture, and spent their time and energy exploring how the various technologies could be used to create wholly unreal worlds. Out of this experimentation came multiple negatives, collaged and photomontaged works, images of staged performances, ephemeral sculptures and conceptual hoaxes, appropriated images and rephotography, camera-less darkroom creations and photograms, etc. etc. All of these were generally still gathered under the umbrella of “photography”, perhaps because their endpoint output was a photographic print of some kind.
As we cross into the digital age, new tools have expanded the number of degrees of freedom artists can now play with; there are now even more variables that can be tweaked and modified. Many of the works in this show might be best called mixed media contemporary art, as they bear little resemblance to the black and white masters of traditional photography. But while most of the works don’t look familiar, nearly all of them are further extensions of practices and ideas with roots found decades ago, just supercharged and taken way out into the unknown, often bridged into this white space by the additional of computer-based manipulation. But it seems the definitional construct is still the same: if the product is a photographic print, no matter how it was created or how unorthodox it may seem, it’s still “photography”.
I’d say it’s impossible to walk into these galleries and not notice Walead Beshty’s huge floor-to-ceiling photograms; they are so blindingly colorful, full of electric magenta and bold yellow, that they drown out everything else. Abstract lines and rectangles cluster into dense overlapping layers. Beshty’s work is clearly a distant relative of Man Ray’s and Laszlo Moholy-Nagy’s photograms, albeit with a much more expressionistic palette.
Daniel Gordon’s cut paper collages of disturbing figures have a Picasso-esque feeling to them, adapted to the culture of image appropriation. Hair, eyes, and other random body parts have been assembled into unsettling and Surreal hybrid characters, not exactly funny, just odd. These piece part people and their flattened surroundings finally emerge as photographs, documents of the elaborate tableaux that have been painstakingly constructed.
Sterling Ruby’s images seem the farthest from “photography” as we know it. These seem to be pure digital creations: a gathering of found images collaged together with seamless perfection and then covered with computer generated “effects” like drips of paint/blood and sprayed on scrawls, creating a violent mood. While the output is still a photographic print, these works seem to have no relationship to the old school operation of a camera; we’re in the realm of digital wizardry here and the opportunities for artistic expansion seem limitless.
The works of Carter Mull, Leslie Hewitt and Sara VanDerBeek travel some of these same experimental roads, but to lesser effect in my opinion. LA Times spreads are washed with distorted colors and patterns of martini glasses and roses become swirls of darkroom effects, staged tabletop still lifes adorned with old photographs are turned upside down, and elaborate temporary sculptures of found pictures and dripping white paint become a patchwork of symbols and inside references.
While overall this exhibit is a mixed bag of work, I enjoyed the fact that this annual show was once again being used to dig a little deeper into a topic of current importance to the medium, rather than simply a gathering of fresh but unrelated imagery. The discussion of what “photography” is or isn’t is far from over, but this show is at least a stake in the ground for people to consider.

Collector’s POV: The photographers in the show are represented by the following galleries:
  • Walead Beshty is represented by Wallspace in New York (here).
  • Daniel Gordon is represented by Claudia Groeflin Galerie in Zurich (here).
  • Leslie Hewitt is represented by D’Amelio Terras in New York (here).
  • Carter Mull is represented by Marc Foxx in Los Angeles (here).
  • Sterling Ruby is represented by Metro Pictures in New York (here). (UPDATE: I’ve been told this may not be the case anymore, and that the right pointer should be to Pace Wildenstein (here))
  • Sara VanDerbeek is represented by D’Amelio Terras in New York (here).

None of these artists has any significant secondary market track record, so gallery retail will likely be the only option for acquiring their work in the short term. While none of this work is a fit for our particular collection, I enjoyed Beshty’s eye-popping photograms the most.

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

  • Walead Beshty: Directions @Hirshhorn Museum 2009 (here)
  • Daniel Gordon: artist site (here)
  • Leslie Hewitt: artist site (here)
  • Carter Mull: former Rivington Arms site (here)
  • Sterling Ruby: The Masturbators @Foxy Production, 2009 (here)
  • Sara VanDerBeek: NY Times review 2006 (here)
Through January 11th
11 West 53rd Street
New York, NY 10019

Auction Results: Contemporary Art Including Arab & Iranian Art, October 16, 2009 @Sotheby’s London

The photography lots found within the larger Contemporary Art sale at Sotheby’s in London last week performed generally in line with the “Normal” definition we have come to see this season for photography, albeit somewhat under the performance benchmarks we have been consistently using: the Buy-In rate was near 25% (in this case just over 28%) and the Total Sale Proceeds just missed the Total Low Estimate (rather than covering it). This was however a major improvement over the performance of the Phillips photography sale in London the day before.

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

Total Lots: 39
Pre Sale Low Total Estimate: £765000
Pre Sale High Total Estimate: £1080000
Total Lots Sold: 28
Total Lots Bought In: 11
Buy In %: 28.21%
Total Sale Proceeds: £739375

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

Low Total Lots: 2
Low Sold: 2
Low Bought In: 0
Buy In %: 00.00%
Total Low Estimate: £8000
Total Low Sold: £12875

Mid Total Lots: 24
Mid Sold: 16
Mid Bought In: 8
Buy In %: 33.33%
Total Mid Estimate: £342000
Total Mid Sold: £212250

High Total Lots: 13
High Sold: 10
High Bought In: 3
Buy In %: 23.08%
Total High Estimate: £730000
Total High Sold: £514250

An amazing 100.00% of the lots that sold had proceeds in or above their estimate, which says the lots were mostly well edited and conservatively priced. There was only one surprise in this sale (defined as having proceeds of at least double the high estimate):

Lot 301 Yazan Khalili, Colour Correction, 2007, at £9750

The top lots by High estimate were lot 114, Gilbert & George, Ginkgoed, 2005, and lot 126, Rashid Rana, Red Carpet-3, 2007, both at £80000-120000. The Gilbert & George was the top outcome of the sale at £97250; the Rana did not sell.

Complete lot by lot results can be found here.

Sotheby’s
34-35 New Bond Street
London W1A 2AA

Fine Art Photography Confidence Index: October 2009

It seems like every time I get together with another collector, gallery owner, or auction house specialist, the conversation eventually turns to speculation on the future of the photography market: when will things change, will it get worse, will it get better, and the like. While total auction receipts are one quantitative measure of the overall activity of the market, they fail to capture the “feel” of the market, particularly in terms of its optimism or pessimism on a forward looking basis. Other indexes routinely track consumer confidence or the confidence of venture capitalists in Silicon Valley, so I wondered about whether it would be possible to use such a model to track the confidence of fine art photography market participants.

So several weeks ago I blasted out a short survey to a broad list of players with an economic interest in the photography market: collectors, gallery owners/staff, private dealers, and auction house specialists. In this email, I asked these folks to do the following: on a simple scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being very low confidence and 5 being very high confidence), provide a rating of the environment (or “market”) for fine art photography in the next 12 months. I left this question purposely vague and open ended, to allow for varying interpretations of what it might actually mean. In addition to the numerical response, I offered the ability for the responder to anonymously provide any comments he/she might wish to add, in explanation or defense of his/her chosen rating. To create the Index numbers below, I took simple averages of the various data sets. My longer term plan is to capture this data on a quarterly basis, in line with the NY auction season (i.e. October, January, April, and July), and provide some trend lines (and graphs) for how these perceptions are changing over time.

So let’s discuss the data for October, 2009.

Overall

The overall Fine Art Photography Confidence Index score for October, 2009 is 3.05. I believe this represents a generally guarded/neutral view of the next 12 months.

But when we cut the data a little finer, and add in the commentary, the results get quite a bit more interesting. In the sections below, I’ve grouped the responses by type (and geography in one case), creating subsets of data that reflect the opinions of various groups of people.

Collectors

The Confidence Index score for Collectors is 2.36. Not a single collector rated his/her confidence higher than 3.00.

There were several common threads to the explanatory remarks. The first concerns prices, in a couple of ways. Several collectors went down more quantitative thinking paths, most coming to the conclusion that prices will fall a further 10-20% overall, to perhaps 40-50% lower than the bubbly heights of a few years ago. Many went on to highlight their view that there are still quite a few gallery owners and dealers who continue to fail to understand this fundamental shift in the equilibrium prices of both the larger market and the specific markets for the artists they represent, creating stress and conflict between long time collector/gallery partners.

A second line of thinking centered on the quality of material in the market. The consensus view is that there is far less superior work out in the market at this time. Nearly all of the respondents touched on this point in one way or another, most sympathizing with consignors who are reluctant to test this uncertain market with top quality pieces. Fear was a surprisingly common sentiment.

The final area of commonality was a kind of silver lining. Many collectors touched on this period as an excellent buying opportunity (especially for the rare gems that do find their way to market), wishing they had more capital available to chase “bargains”. Several seemed to be looking on from the sidelines with a wistful air, knowing that when they look back at 2009 from a few years hence, this will have been a good time to buy. Predictions on sales volumes were resulting mixed, with some predicting an overall decline due to lack of good material, others seeing a likely uptick coming from an increase in lower priced buying.

Overall, this is a mostly pessimistic group. Their comments were full of the following indicative words: weak, hard, poor, soft, over-valued, correction, and recovery.

Gallery Owners/Private Dealers

The Confidence Index score for Gallery Owners/Private Dealers is 3.56.

Nearly every gallery owner and private dealer came back with some variation on the following sentiment: good quality material is still finding buyers. Many are seeing glimmers of hope in recent small improvements in sales, mostly from institutions and dedicated collectors; while things have clearly condensed since 2007, many feel some strength coming back.

As I looked at the data more closely, I decided to cut the Gallery Owners and Private Dealers into two separate groups. The results were quite intriguing. The Confidence Index score for Gallery Owners (Alone) is 3.06, while the Confidence Index score for Private Dealers (Alone) is 4.23. Most of the private dealers highlighted that they have low overhead, so they are avoiding the painful costs of additional staff, promotions, rent, and various exhibit costs in these trying times; as a result, they are much more optimistic (one even used the word “bullish”) than their counterparts saddled with huge spaces to fill in high rent districts. Many of the private dealers have not seen their prices/volumes fall as steeply as the gallery owners, and their opinion of the quality of their material is generally higher (not sure why this is the case exactly).

Lastly, across the board, there was meaningfully higher confidence in vintage material than contemporary material. Quite a few respondents had a very weak prognosis for contemporary color work in the short term.

Auction Houses

The Confidence Index score for Auction House staff is 3.00.

The auction house specialists were the most cagy and careful of our survey participants. If there is a pattern to their succinct remarks, it seems to follow the results of the recent sales: some see optimism in busier activity levels and total proceeds creeping back up, others see pessimism in continued softness in parts of the market.

London Respondents

As I scanned the data looking for other patterns of interest, the one that stuck out the most was the London scores, regardless of which group the response came from. The Confidence Index score for London Respondents (Alone) is 1.93. I think this points to a particular lack of confidence in the local British economy, evidenced by a weak set of recent photography auctions.

Overall, I found the data and the commentary to be slightly more negative than I might have predicted (we did not participate in the survey ourselves). It seems that all the players in the fine art photography market have received a stiff dose of reality in the past year, and are understandably conflicted as they look to the future. I look forward to seeing how these opinions evolve over time.

As we look to the next round of the Fine Art Photography Confidence Index next January, we’d certainly like to get more people involved – more responses means a more comprehensive and representative data set. So if you’re interested in participating, please email us (info@dlkcollection.com) your name, contact email, geographic location and group affiliation (i.e. collector, gallery owner/staff, auction house staff) so we can put you on the distribution list.

Auction Results: Photographs & Photographic Literature, October 22, 2009 @Swann

The results of the Swann various owner sale hovered just below the new definition of “Normal” we outlined in our last auction results post. The Buy-In rate was just under 27% (the best we’ve seen at Swann in a couple of years) and the Total Sale Proceeds just missed the Total Low Estimate. Certainly a respectable outing, given the lower end focus of the material on offer and the meaningful percentage of lots that sold for below their estimate range. The “surprises” below certainly highlight the difference between the typical Swann material and that of the other houses.

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

Total Lots: 327
Pre Sale Low Total Estimate: $1388300
Pre Sale High Total Estimate: $2012650
Total Lots Sold: 239
Total Lots Bought In: 88
Buy In %: 26.91%
Total Sale Proceeds: $1260240

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

Low Total Lots: 297
Low Sold: 222
Low Bought In: 75
Buy In %: 25.25%
Total Low Estimate: $1352650
Total Low Sold: $922440

Mid Total Lots: 30
Mid Sold: 17
Mid Bought In: 13
Buy In %: 43.33%
Total Mid Estimate: $660000
Total Mid Sold: $337800

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

Only 63.30% of the lots that sold had proceeds in or above their estimate. There were a total of nine surprises in this sale (defined as having proceeds of at least double the high estimate):

Lot 4 William Henry Fox Talbot, Portrait of Talbot’s daughter Ela, 1840s, at $9000
Lot 31 (California Crime), Mug shot album, 1885-1892, at $12000
Lot 64 Wilson Bentley, 7 snowcrystals, 1903-1910, at $18000
Lot 125 (Murder and Mayhem), Mysteries of Life album, 1917-1942, at $11400
Lot 128 (Crime), Al Capone, 1929, at $2040
Lot 145 Edward Weston/Cole Weston, Nude, 1936/1970s, at $6000
Lot 215 (Bruce of LA, Lon of NY), Male nudes, 1950s, at $3360
Lot 243 Bob Seidemann, Janis Joplin (Standing Nude), 1967/1980s, at $2880
Lot 255 Eddie Adams, Saigon, 1968/1980s, at $43200

The top lot by High estimate was lot 28 Eadward Muybridge, 125 plates from Animal Locomotion, 1887, at $35000-45000; it was also the top outcome in the sale at $81000.

Complete lot by lot results can be found here.

Swann Galleries
104 East 25th Street
New York, NY 10010

Richard Learoyd, Unique Photographs @McKee

JTF (just the facts): A total of 12 large scale color images, framed in white and mounted with no mat, and hung in a single large gallery space. The works are unique dye destruction prints, ranging in size from 58×48 to 73×48 or reverse. The images were taken between 2007 and 2009. This is Learoyd’s first solo show in the US and the first show of photography at McKee. (Installation shots at right.)

Comments/Context: Richard Learoyd’s larger than life portraits and still lifes have a distinctly 19th century quality to them, albeit with a modern twist. Using a room-sized camera obscura, the muted color images have a very shallow depth of field: some areas have extremely sharp detail, while others fade into shadowy blurs. Similarly, the light is concentrated on the figure’s faces, creating a tunnel vision-like cone of darkness around the central subject, reminiscent of early photography. But these are not hand held dauguerreotype or tintypes to be savored alone; they are massive color images of modern women that cover entire walls.

The best of the pictures are the subtle posed portraits: women gazing into space, sleeping in a chair, or looking directly at us with unsmiling faces; the simplicity of a flowered shirt or a melancholy expression punctuated by dark eyebrows stands out against the utilitarian grey backdrops. Personalities quietly come forth. The still lifes are altogether less enticing: images of mirrors, a deflated shark and a fish heart in a net of black string seem to be trying harder than necessary to grab our attention, and the magic ageless quality of the portraits is somehow lost when applied to the inanimate objects.

Overall, there is something different going on in these understated and unusual portraits, and I would have preferred to have seen a deeper sample of them to wrestle with it further.

Collector’s POV: The works in this show are priced between $35000 and $42000. Learoyd’s images have virtually no secondary market history, so gallery retail is the only option for interested collectors at this point. While portraits aren’t a fit for our collection, I liked the sleeping woman, Agnes in Red Dress on White Chair, 2009, the best. As an aside, there is also a single Learoyd portrait in the current ICP show (review later this week).

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

Transit Hub:

  • Artist site (here)
  • NY Times review (here, scroll down)

Richard Learoyd, Unique Photographs
Through October 31st

McKee Gallery
745 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10151

How Should We Evaluate Digital Craftsmanship?

Earlier this week, my wife and I watched Valentino: The Last Emperor (here) on DVD. For those of you that haven’t seen this film, it is a terrific documentary covering the last year or so of Valentino’s reign as the head of his iconic Italian fashion house, including the now famous 45th anniversary retrospective of his work and the glamorous star-studded gala celebration in Rome.

Near the end of the film, there is an amazing scene, where Valentino and Karl Lagerfeld are wandering through the museum show of Valentino’s jaw-dropping designs, and Lagerfeld stops, puts his arm around Valentino, and says something like “Compared to the two of us, the rest are making rags.”

As I thought more about this stunning comment, I wondered about how it might connect to the world of photography. In the old analog world, the craftsmanship of the gelatin silver print was clear: great printers were obviously better than average printers, and you didn’t have to have a particularly tuned eye to see the difference. If we were to try elect a pantheon of master printers, one of my votes would certainly go to Frederick Sommer, but of course, there are many others who took meticulous printing to new heights. There were also those like Bill Brandt who were consistently sloppy, but didn’t seem to care.

In the new digital world, I find myself much more confused about how to evaluate prints. If there are obvious imperfections, pixelations, digital remnants or other unwanted artifacts, we can of course single these prints out as less than good. But how are we to tell the difference between average and superior? Can we still pick winners based on elevation of craft alone?

I really don’t have any good answers here I’m afraid. If we assume that once a digital image goes to “the printer” it is exactly the same as every subsequent image printed, the only variations then come in the proper functioning of the machinery, the fidelity of the inks and the quality of the papers. Are most collectors really equipped to dive into these details with any kind of knowledgeable connoisseurship? And if the above is true, do we then step back to evaluate a photographer’s skill at computer-based manipulation and editing? Is this still “printing”? I’m not sure that it is.

I think what we need is a jargon free checklist/guide of what to look for in the physical endpoint of digital prints, from the perspective of a collector. Perhaps this exists somewhere on the Internet already, or maybe we need to gather together the information and create it here.

So back to Valentino and Lagerfeld. How will we judge the master printers of this digital age? What metrics will we use? Can anyone put forth the two current best who could have a similar conversation, whose skills and craftsmanship put them undeniably head and shoulders above their peers? Is this even a relevant question? As a collector, I feel an uneasy need to understand this better, but I’ll admit that I really don’t even know where to begin.

Cédric Gerbehaye, Congo in Limbo @Anastasia

JTF (just the facts): A total of 13 black and white images, framed in black and matted, and hung in the single room gallery and office alcove. The prints are archival inkjet prints on Hahnemuhle paper, in three sizes: 16×16, 16×24 or reverse, and 14×32. There are 10 works in the 16×24 size, 1 in the 16×16 size, and 2 in the 14×32 size. All of the images were taken between 2007 and 2009. The works are all untitled and are not editioned. This is Gerbehaye’s first solo show in the US. (Installation shots at right.)
.
Comments/Context: Cédric Gerbehaye’s documentary photographs of the recent conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo are dark and haunting. They chronicle the intertwined lives of the soldiers and the civilians, and the hardships being endured by those that have been displaced or injured by the civil war.
.
Many of the images tell the story of life in the tent camps, where a warren of shelters made of mud, sticks and sackcloth house families and young children. Others capture the soldiers, alternately outfitted with grenade launchers and spears, in berets and bandoliers; images of child soldiers jammed into the back of a truck or praying before a day of fighting capture the depressing reality of the on-the-ground combatants. Hospitals and churches complete the portrait of the victims; bright white light streams in through cross-shaped windows in a simple church, while men cover their eyes in despair. The most memorable image in the show is a picture of a young general, outfitted in a cowboy hat, and flanked by two heavily armed bodyguards; his sunglasses and cellphones sit on the simple table in front of him, his expression one of confident power.

While we have all seen pictures of civil wars and felt sympathy for the innocent bystanders who get caught up in the crossfire of the conflicts, these images are consistently well crafted and moving. They are dark and shadowy, with alternating moments of gritty realism and quiet lyricism.
.
Collector’s POV: All of the prints in the show are priced at $1650. Gerbehaye has no secondary market history. While photojournalism isn’t an exact match for our particular collection, this is an impressive and penetrating group of humanist pictures that tells an important, and generally overlooked, story.
.
Rating: * (one star) GOOD (rating system described here)
.
Transit Hub:

  • Agence VU page (here)
  • Medecins Sans Frontieres video (here)

Cédric Gerbehaye, Congo in Limbo
Through October 31st
.
Anastasia Photo
166 Orchard Street
New York, NY 10002

The Private Collection of Fern M. Schad @Wester

JTF (just the facts): A total of 40 works, variously framed and matted, and hung in the main gallery space, with a few extras in the office area. Nearly all of the prints are black and white gelatin silver, with a mix of vintage and later prints; the negatives range between 1926 and 1986. (Installation shots at right.)

The following photographers have been included in the show, with the number of prints on view in parentheses:

Harry Callahan (7)
Walker Evans (1)
Joe Deal (1)
Louis Faurer (4)
Lee Friedlander (3)
John Gintoff (1)
Emmet Gowin (5)
Robert Heinecken (1 set of 12)
Eikoh Hosoe (1)
Andre Kertesz (1)
Les Krims (1)
Roger Mertin (1)
Duane Michals (1 set of 6)
Nicholas Nixon (2)
Nancy Rexroth (1)
Aaron Siskind (4)
Frederick Sommer (1)
Josef Sudek (1)
JoAnn Verburg (1 diptych)
Garry Winogrand (2)

There are also 6 portfolios available for purchase, from Robert Heinecken, Les Krims, William Larson (2), Aaron Siskind, and Garry Winogrand.

Comments/Context: The private collections of former dealers are always of particular interest to me as a collector. Given all the shows that are put on and the relationships that are built by gallery owners over time, it is fascinating to see which pictures get selected out (to be saved for private consumption) from the great multitudes that pass by.

LIGHT Gallery was a pioneering photography gallery in New York, started by Tennyson Schad in the early 1970s, when collecting photographs was still in its infancy. The gallery represented Callahan, Gowin, Siskind, Sommer, Kertesz, and Winogrand, among many others, long before they were canonized as modern masters. Over the years, it was also an important training ground for many of today’s top photography dealers.

It is not surprising therefore that this show of the private collection of Fern Schad (Tennyson Schad died in 2001) is full of works from the artists the gallery represented in the 1970s. But there are few “greatest hits” here; many are lesser known images and rarities. There are unusual portraits, quite a few images of Edith (Gowin) and Eleanor (Callahan), and a pair of Siskind divers. All in, the exhibition is a thoughtful mix of high quality black and white material, a welcome counterpoint to a world of contemporary color photography.

Collector’s POV: The works in the show range in price from $750 to $35000, with one NFS. The portfolios are priced between $20000 and $100000. Our favorites included Frederick Sommer’s Artificial Leg, 1944/1950s, Louis Faurer’s Self Portrait, 1947/1970s, and Aaron Siskind’s Chicago Facade #16, 1957/1960.

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

Transit Hub:

  • Announcement cards from LIGHT @PhotoEphemera (here)

The Private Collection of Fern M. Schad
Through October 31st

Rick Wester Fine Art
511 West 25th Street
New York, NY 10012

Hosang Park, A Square @Bekman

JTF (just the facts): A total of 9 color images, mounted without frames, and hung in the narrow single room gallery space. All of the works are digital c-prints, made between 2004 and 2007. The prints come in two sizes: 20×24 and 40×50, in editions of 20 and 5 respectively. There are 4 large prints and 5 smaller ones on display. This is Park’s first solo show in New York. (Installation shot at right.)

Comments/Context: Hosang Park’s aerial images of meticulously designed outdoor spaces near luxury apartment buildings in Korea are surreal in their perfect emptiness. In the same way that miniature golf is “golf”, these spaces are “parks”, jam packed with “features”: colorful paths and walkways in gentle arcs of tight brickwork, young trees in square planters with carefully aligned benches underneath, plazas surrounded by fake grass, play grounds and ball courts sandwiched in between gazebos, pavilions, and fake streams. Of course, no one is using these brand new spaces: they stand soulless and uninhabited, man-altered nature to fulfill some zoning requirement for public outdoor space.

Park’s images highlight the density of abstract geometries found in these parks; they feel like the plans of a landscape architect enamored with a few too many bold graphical elements. While the normal function of a park is to provide a place for restful peace amidst nature, these chaotic designs seem just the opposite: noisy, convoluted and claustrophobic, just the kind of place that drains away any energy a visitor might have.

Overall, while these images certainly have a eye-catching decorative quality, I particularly liked the notes of perplexing weirdness and subtle sadness that run underneath.

Collector’s POV: The prints in the show are priced at $1200 and $5000, depending on size. Park has no secondary market history, so gallery retail is the only option for interested collectors at this point. Prints can also be found on Bekman’s 20×200 website (here) in various sizes and editions, all the way down to $50 for an 11×14 print (quite a bargain).

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

Transit Hub:

  • Artist site (here)
  • Review: BLDGBLOG (here)

Hosang Park, A Square
Through November 7th

Jen Bekman Gallery
6 Spring Street
New York, NY 10012

Sign up for our weekly email newsletter

This field is required.