First, I have to say that I consider Annie Leibovitz to be one of the best photographers now working in any genre. I have admired her work ever since 1971 when I received my copy of Rolling Stone in the mail and saw on its cover the black & white headshot she had taken of a bearded John Lennon. In my opinion, that's still one of the best celebrity portraits ever done. For that very reason, though, I found the current exhibit, Pilgrimage, at the New York Historical Society a major disappointment.
Perhaps the problem is that these photographs were too deeply personal for their own good. This project really was a pilgrimage in the most literal sense. In the course of her journey the photographer traveled to sites that obviously held great meaning for her and had a tremendous emotional impact on her psyche. Unfortunately, Leibovitz failed to communicate the importance these locations possessed for her in the photos she took of them . Devotees visiting shrines have always taken snapshots as mementos to commemorate their journey and as reminders of what they experienced when viewing the places they considered holy. But while such photos may be a source of inspiration for such an individual, they are most often incomprehensible to those who do not share the devotee's beliefs. That is the case here. These are purely private works that should never have been shown in public. The Gallery Guide admits as much when it states: "... Leibovitz visited Emily Dickinson's house in Amherst, Massachusetts and made a few photographs, just for herself." It goes on to acknowledge: "She [Leibovitz] chose the subjects simply because they meant something to her."
I've always strongly felt that a work of art has to stand on its own. If one need explain what a given photograph or painting is about in order for the viewer to "get it," then the artist has failed. It's as simple as that. He or she might just as well toss the work in the garbage and try again. And yet many of the photos on display are understandable only after one has first referred to the Gallery Guide conveniently provided at the entrance to the show. For example, there is one shot where small waves of water fill the entire frame. It's nothing but a meaningless pattern until one reads in the Guide that this is actually a photograph of the surface of the River Ouse where Virginia Woolf drowned herself in 1941. Again, there is a photograph of what looks for all the world like a piece of scrap lumber. The viewer is initially puzzled why so much effort should have been put into so meticulously recording its appearance. It is not until one checks the Guide that one realizes that this is the top of Woolf's ink stained desk. But knowing this does not make the work a better photo. In the end, the only shot at the exhibit that worked for me as a photograph was that of Thoreau's bed.
Ironically, I do have empathy for a many of the personages to whom Leibovitz pays tribute. This is especially true of the three personages from Concord - Thoreau, Emerson and Alcott. Just hearing the names brings to my mind the movements of Ives's Concord Sonata. I also have a great deal of respect for the work of Martha Graham, Julia Margaret Cameron and Georgia O'Keeffe. I had to wonder though how many other visitors to the show were as familiar with the careers of these artists as I was. It's not likely that most non-photographers would know of Cameron's importance to the early history of the medium or appreciate her significance as the first professional female photographer. On the other hand, I could have cared less about some of the others thus honored - Eleanor Roosevelt, Elvis Presley, Annie Oakley and Ansel Adams, for example - and had no interest in seeing any photos devoted to them.
Another annoying feature of the exhibit is that no technical data whatsoever has been provided to those who might be interested in how the photographs were taken. I assume Leibovitz used a high-end medium format digital camera, but this is only a guess. The prints shown are technically excellent, but no information is provided regarding them. One would like to know how much editing and post-production work was done on them and what papers were used. I did ask these questions of an attendant, but was told there was no one there at the time who could help me.
The exhibit continues through February 22, 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment