Clearly, neither Maris nor jnantz understand that an exhibit of Brandt's original work, to be seen today (just as in the Seventies), properly includes work the artist did on prints to obtain, IN REPRODUCTION, the look he pursued, and for which he is appreciated today.
Lacking Photoshop, heavy retouching was the only way Brandt had to produce that look with the Francis Bacon negative (tho Brandt got what he wanted by selective print bleaching and other obvious retouching throughout his career with many other portraits).
Viewing originals like Brandt's Francis Bacon portrait should be enlightening to people who know his work only from reproduction.
Hanging that Francis Bacon portrait is a brilliant (and brave) way to show viewers some of what Bacon had to do to get the look he wanted. The curator deserves credit.
BECAUSE that image exists as an original only as a heavily retouched print, it will never satisfy the fussy Brett Weston standards that are so popular with tourists and photo magazines because it wasn't intended and doesn't exist that way.
The the distinctive and beautiful work done throughout the long career of a brilliant and distinctive photographer deserves credit, not ignorant gossip, denunciation and distraction.
That "germ theory" was "basically a new concept" is a bizarre attempt at distraction...the Bacon portrait was hung in Queensland more than 70 years into the 20th Century (qualifies as "modern times"), was hung in Southern California and in my home town several ye