Bill Brandt

[CMoore]

I am really not very fond of "Nudes".
Not just Bill, but from Any photographer. 98% just look redundant and boring.
But his other work, i like to look at that a lot.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bil...hAhXBv54KHVk8CmoQ_B0wC3oECAMQBg#imgrc=_&vet=1

 

[jtk]

Saw the LARGE traveling exhibit of Brandt originals, others exquisitely scanned and inkjet printed.. I have several of his books, none of which do him justice. Factoid: he heavily retouched many of his famous photos but perhaps not the beach nudes.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

Saw the LARGE traveling exhibit of Brandt originals, others exquisitely scanned and inkjet printed.. I have several of his books, none of which do him justice. Factoid: he heavily retouched many of his famous photos but perhaps not the beach nudes.

That was an amazing exhibit

 

[Eric Rose]

Bill Brandt was one of my early inspirations. I love his stuff.

 

[jtk]

This is my favorite Brandt photo. He very heavily retouched the print. Note that Brandt webpages coyly avoid showing most of his hotel-room nudes, and that Brandt labeled some of his photos of toes as "nudes."

 

[Ian Grant]

This is my favorite Brandt photo. He very heavily retouched the print. Note that Brandt webpages coyly avoid showing most of his hotel-room nudes, and that Brandt labeled some of his photos of toes as "nudes."

Many of Brandt's images are from a bygone era and also aesthetic of that era. I grew up with Brandt etc, we'd no real knowledge Ansel Adams and Edward Weston here in the UK until quite mid to late 70's and it was really the 80's that open European eyes to what was happening in the US. Many say it was the Family of Man touring exhibition that really opened our eyes.

Unlike the OP I love Brandt's nudes and Lee Friedlander's, weston's, and many others.

Ian

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Amazing work.

 

[Maris]

This is my favorite Brandt photo. He very heavily retouched the print. Note that Brandt webpages coyly avoid showing most of his hotel-room nudes, and that Brandt labeled some of his photos of toes as "nudes."

I saw a Bill Brandt exhibition at the Queensland Art Gallery in the 1970s and it almost caused me to give up photography. The technical quality was appallingly over-contrasted and the retouching on virtually every photograph was particularly crude. In the Francis Bacon image (see above) the forehead tone was completely blown out to white and merged with the white sky behind it. Did Bill Brandt throw this picture away and redo it? No, he simply drew in the missing outline of the Francis Bacon face with ball-point pen; a blue ball-point pen at that. I though that if this is the standard of photography that gets fulsome praise and a major exhibition at a prestigious state gallery then I don't want any part of this discreditable medium.

The next photographic exhibition I saw at the QAG was from Brett Weston: a much more encouraging experience. I also learned that when an art figure becomes beatified by the establishment their works, however great or wretched, become immune to adverse critique.

 

[removed account4]

Here's an interview of Mr Brandt
I never really knew much of his work..
really humble and soft spoken

 

[Vaughn]

You never noticed that your sitters are always on the edge?" Wonderful!

 

[Louis Nargi]

I like his work

 

[jtk]

I saw a Bill Brandt exhibition at the Queensland Art Gallery in the 1970s and it almost caused me to give up photography. The technical quality was appallingly over-contrasted and the retouching on virtually every photograph was particularly crude. In the Francis Bacon image (see above) the forehead tone was completely blown out to white and merged with the white sky behind it. Did Bill Brandt throw this picture away and redo it? No, he simply drew in the missing outline of the Francis Bacon face with ball-point pen; a blue ball-point pen at that. I though that if this is the standard of photography that gets fulsome praise and a major exhibition at a prestigious state gallery then I don't want any part of this discreditable medium.

The next photographic exhibition I saw at the QAG was from Brett Weston: a much more encouraging experience. I also learned that when an art figure becomes beatified by the establishment their works, however great or wretched, become immune to adverse critique.

Presumably Maris isn't aware that Brandt was an actual photojournalist as well as artist. He retouched knowing how his work would be reproduced (newspapers). Comparing him to Brett Weston is outright goofy. As it happens, Brett made beautiful prints but he wasn't as original as his father...whose work I much prefer.

 

[jtk]

Presumably Maris isn't aware that Brandt was an actual photojournalist as well as artist. He retouched knowing how his work would be reproduced (newspapers). Comparing him to Brett Weston is outright goofy. As it happens, Brett made beautiful prints but he wasn't as original as his father...whose work I much prefer.

Most probably know Brandt from photo magazines...they rarely see more than certain of his nudes. I don't think they're aware that he was after a dramatic, very contrasty (almost like Kodalith or Grade 6), not detail-oriented image.

If people wonder why Brandt is considered so important, I suggest "Bill Brandt: Portraits" . I don't know a good Brandt website and I do apologize for posting that terribly scanned Francis Bacon (I couldn't find better but I do love the image when it's reproduced per Brandt's style)...

If you hate that Francis Bacon, you'll also hate Brandt's 1966 self portrait, his 1966 Rene Magritte, his 1955 Grorges Braque, his 1956 Pablo Picasso, his 1980 Ralph Richardson, or his 1976 Brassai.

https://www.amazon.com/Portraits-Bi...ndt+portraits&qid=1553176284&s=gateway&sr=8-3

I have several Brandt books because I'm a fanboy. I also have several Edward Weston books, but non of his son's.

 

[awty]

Wonderful pictures, he works depth and light so well. People like that inspire you to dig deeper.

 

[Maris]

Presumably Maris isn't aware that Brandt was an actual photojournalist as well as artist. He retouched knowing how his work would be reproduced (newspapers). Comparing him to Brett Weston is outright goofy. As it happens, Brett made beautiful prints but he wasn't as original as his father...whose work I much prefer.

There was a follow up. Back in the 1970s I had some connections in the art establishment and I investigated why the Bill Brandt exhibition was a such poor quality. Here's what I was told.

All the photojournalist style photographs were old and dated from before or during the WWII years. After the war Bill had reduced his photojournalist "social commentary" work in favour of becoming Bill Brandt the Artist and photographer of celebrities. One reason for this was that the class structures of pre-war England had largely collapsed and the social justice struggle was essentially won. The other reason was that being a celebrated artist was easier than being a hard driving photojournalist. Bill Brandt's health had never been robust. Remember that he spent six years in hospital as a young man fighting tuberculosis. This in the days before antibiotics where you naturally overcame TB or it killed you. Also remember that for the last 40 years of his life Bill Brandt was a fragile diabetic. So doing those quirky nudes as consciously expressive art was a pleasant way of forgetting the war years and giving an admiring public more Bill Brandt pictures to marvel at.

Bill was a kind, empathic, and obliging man and sometimes this did not do him any good. When he agreed to send a exhibition to Australia couldn't predict that when the deadline came he would be in very poor health. There was no chance that he could produce or assemble the required photographs. By now Bill was a celebrity himself and had attracted a circle of "helpers". And it was these helpers that ransacked the Bill Brandt archive for pictures to send; good ones, out-takes, culls, work prints, whatever made up the numbers and added a bit of variety. It was pretty well a case of "Send 'em anything, they'll love it". The local curator was shocked but made the best of it. Bill Brandt couldn't care too much. His important business was staying alive.

 

[jtk]

OK, sounds almost credible.

Maris: Apparently we are supposed to accept that your memory of the 70s has shifted 180 degrees between two posts. Now you respect Brandt, earlier you condemned both Brandt and that allegedly important Australian musuem.

 

[removed account4]

There was a follow up. Back in the 1970s I had some connections in the art establishment and I investigated why the Bill Brandt exhibition was a such poor quality. Here's what I was told.

All the photojournalist style photographs were old and dated from before or during the WWII years. After the war Bill had reduced his photojournalist "social commentary" work in favour of becoming Bill Brandt the Artist and photographer of celebrities. One reason for this was that the class structures of pre-war England had largely collapsed and the social justice struggle was essentially won. The other reason was that being a celebrated artist was easier than being a hard driving photojournalist. Bill Brandt's health had never been robust. Remember that he spent six years in hospital as a young man fighting tuberculosis. This in the days before antibiotics where you naturally overcame TB or it killed you. Also remember that for the last 40 years of his life Bill Brandt was a fragile diabetic. So doing those quirky nudes as consciously expressive art was a pleasant way of forgetting the war years and giving an admiring public more Bill Brandt pictures to marvel at.

Bill was a kind, empathic, and obliging man and sometimes this did not do him any good. When he agreed to send a exhibition to Australia couldn't predict that when the deadline came he would be in very poor health. There was no chance that he could produce or assemble the required photographs. By now Bill was a celebrity himself and had attracted a circle of "helpers". And it was these helpers that ransacked the Bill Brandt archive for pictures to send; good ones, out-takes, culls, work prints, whatever made up the numbers and added a bit of variety. It was pretty well a case of "Send 'em anything, they'll love it". The local curator was shocked but made the best of it. Bill Brandt couldn't care too much. His important business was staying alive.

hi maris
thanks for the background on him and his work
I was wondering as i watched the video and did my best
to hear and understand his soft voice what his story was.
You are right about TB, he's lucky he survived !
Its extremely contagious and they didn't call it "consumption" for nothing !
Near where I live there was a vampire scare in the 1800s when a lot of people were dying of consumption...
In the "21st century 1st world" we don't really understand how not too long ago someone could
scrape their leg in the woods and die of an infection ( and how it still happens today in some places)
and how "germ theory" is basically a new concept.

 

[jtk]

hi maris
thanks for the background on him and his work
I was wondering as i watched the video and did my best
to hear and understand his soft voice what his story was.
You are right about TB, he's lucky he survived !
Its extremely contagious and they didn't call it "consumption" for nothing !
Near where I live there was a vampire scare in the 1800s when a lot of people were dying of consumption...
In the "21st century 1st world" we don't really understand how not too long ago someone could
scrape their leg in the woods and die of an infection ( and how it still happens today in some places)
and how "germ theory" is basically a new concept.

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 doesn't exist that way....wasn't intended that way.

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 wrongly bizarre attempt at distraction...the Bacon portrait was hung in Queensland more than 70 years into the 20th Century (qualifies as "modern times").

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/arts/design/bill-brandt-shadow-and-light-at-moma.html

 

[jtk]

 

[removed account4]

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.

I have never seen Mr. Brant's original work and never suggested that I have. I know nothing of Mr Brandt, but
Maris' description of his hardships were enlightening.

Here's an interview of Mr Brandt
I never really knew much of his work..
really humble and soft spoken

That "germ theory" was "basically a new concept" is a wrongly bizarre attempt at distraction...

Perhaps you should read about Joseph Lister, modern antiseptic surgery and the history of the surgical glove?
Yes germ theory is a relatively modern concept. While Varro hypothesized about it 100BCE people still believed in spontaneous generation into the 1800s.

Please stop being beligerant and trolling.

 

[jtk]

I have never seen Mr. Brant's original work and never suggested that I have. I know nothing of Mr Brandt, but
Maris' description of his hardships were enlightening.




Perhaps you should read about Joseph Lister, modern antiseptic surgery and the history of the surgical glove?
Yes germ theory is a relatively modern concept. While Varro hypothesized about it 100BCE people still believed in spontaneous generation into the 1800s.

Please stop being beligerant and trolling.

I dont understand why someone so ignorant about Brandt's work would foul a thread about the photographer cited in that MOMA link.

 

[removed account4]

Weird, I never saw a MOMA link, no clue why you keep re-quoting me
when I have nothing to do with Maris' post or what you are talking about, and ...
as usual, no clue what your point is.
Please keep me out of your posts ?

 

[jtk]

 

[jtk]

Once more, with feeling:

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/arts/design/bill-brandt-shadow-and-light-at-moma.html

 

[jtk]