Sally Mann - London

[Schlapp]

I recently visited Londinium on a quick visit and took in Sally Mann's work at the fantastic Photographer's Gallery.
Loved her older family work but "What remains" did not do it for me. My question is; the large prints at the entrance level - collodion /ambrotype work printed on what was said to be silver gelatin did look anything of the kind.
Has anyone seen this? Wondering if I am mistaken.

 

[MikeSeb]

Anyone who refers to Britain's capital by its old Roman name gets a high-five from me!

I only wish I could answer your question

 

[Mike Crawford]

For anyone in London who would like an alternative look at Sally Mann's work, this Saturday has an ambient music evening which sounds interesting.
Details here;
http://www.photonet.org.uk/index.php?pvid=1193

 

[lns]

I recall seeing a documentary about Sally Mann and the What Remains work, which showed her printing one or two of the pieces. I can't answer your question definitively, but my hazy memory is that they were, indeed, silver prints.

The documentary is worth watching. I think it's called "What Remains."

-Laura

 

[Ian Leake]

I have to admit that I struggled with many of the pictures in this exhibition. While her Immediate Family prints were mostly awesome, several seemed over-worked with intrusive dodging and burning (they seemed like 'rescued' prints where the negative contrast range was too high for normal use). I found the landscapes boring. I need to see her What Remains another time before I take a view on it.

 

[SuzanneR]

Not sure if they are showing any of the Proud Flesh work in this show, but I think it's a return to what she does best... photographing those closest and most important to her, and I think the work is stronger than anything she's done since Immediate Family. The pictures are made as wet plate collodion on clear glass so they are negatives, and then are printed onto gelatin silver paper. Not sure if the prints I saw last year were varnished or not, but I don't think they were. It seems to have a similar emotional content as the work with her children, and I was quite moved by it.

To Ian's point, I've seen some stunning prints of hers and some that looked like she was trying a little too hard to make something expressive of a not well exposed or developed negative. (I've seen a particularly bad print of The New Mothers which makes me think her negative kinda sucks!! Actually, it's a relief to know that even she may have had a few epic battles in the darkroom!!)

 

[benjiboy]

I greatly admire Sally Mann's work and although I would love to see the exhibition, a four hundred mile round trip is just is just too far to go.

 

[Schlapp]

I greatly admire Sally Mann's work and although I would love to see the exhibition, a four hundred mile round trip is just is just too far to go.

Hey up. Twas 900miles each way for me!

The family prints are just amazing I admit, however, I'm still not convinced the large prints in the entrance room of the London exhibition are silver gelatin, varnished or not.

 

[SuzanneR]

Here's a recent review of the show in the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marina-cashdan/the-dichotomy-of-sally-ma_b_675034.html?ref=fb&src=sp

 

[Chris101]

Proud Flesh is just intense. For the curious, Aperture had an article about the series a year or so ago. While the subject matter is similar, the sytle of the photography was quite different than Immediate Family.

 

[Ian Leake]

The family prints are just amazing I admit, however, I'm still not convinced the large prints in the entrance room of the London exhibition are silver gelatin, varnished or not.

I popped in on Sunday, and the large prints in the entrance room are definitely labelled: "Silver Gelatin Print with Varnish"

 

[sandholm]

I saw here work at Musée de l'Elysée, Lausanne, and i dont care for here work at al. Its blurred, out of focus, photographs of either nude children or dead people. They even had a movie about her and that just made me more sick. I also saw some picture of here pore dog that had died and after 6 months she had dug it up again and taken pictures of it, just plane sad.

I consider here work either pornographic or just plane boring, like photographed /dead people/dead dogs/peeing nude children/, just to try to evoke peoples feeling, its just boring.

 

[Schlapp]

I popped in on Sunday, and the large prints in the entrance room are definitely labelled: "Silver Gelatin Print with Varnish"

Yes, I saw that too but wasn't convinced - although I respect the place enough to think they wouldn't try to pull the wool over my eyes.

 

[bill spears]

I saw the exhibition and really enjoyed it. The immediate family images I thought were stunning and very beautiful and was actually quite moved by them. Taking pictures of kids in action on a 10x8 is no mean feat. I didn't notice any flaws in the printing because the strength of the images overided it.

I questioned the large silver prints in the first room with girl on reception and was told they are indeed collodion negatives printed on silver gelatin paper.
I'm not sure about her confession to liking all the flaws, dust and dirt getting in on the process. Is this an excuse for sloppy technique ?

 

[c6h6o3]

I'm not sure about her confession to liking all the flaws, dust and dirt getting in on the process. Is this an excuse for sloppy technique ?

Yes

 

[Ian Leake]

I'm not sure about her confession to liking all the flaws, dust and dirt getting in on the process. Is this an excuse for sloppy technique ?

I must admit that I don't really get wet plate collodion. Yes, it's an interesting and demanding process, but the argument that dust, crackles, blurs and thumbprints somehow enhance the photograph doesn't cut the mustard with me. That's a bit to much like art school conceptual art for my liking.

With exception of Katie Cooke's fabulous still lifes, I don't think I've seen a single wet plate photo that wouldn't have been better made with film.

It feels to me that in many cases, photographers are adopting wet plate either because it is fashionable or because they have lost their confidence. Neither of these are a sound foundation for making good art.

I know this is partly a matter of taste, but it's also more than that. Boring pictures are boring pictures, even if they are made with a fashionable process.

 

[patrickjames]

I have never been a big fan of hers, but I do think the early work is good, although if her children were fat and ugly, no one would know or care who Sally Mann is today. She benefitted from the controversy, similar to Sturges, of adolescent nudity in her images whether she planned it or not. I am not too comfortable with some of it, but I would take it over Sturges' work any day of the week. At some point though her children, which were the subject of her success, didn't want to be photographed any more and I think that it caused her to try radically different things. Her work changed from a sort of honesty to relying on artifice or superficiality born out by the process of collodion. The fact that she wants all of the defects in the plate, and even encourages the defects, seems to be a crutch that could be the result of her insecurity after her great success. The images that came after her family work haven't been greatly received, and the dead body images even resulted in having a show cancelled. If you see this in the documentary, it clearly shows her questioning what was happening. Her return to photographing her family, by photographing her husband, can be seen as an attempt to return the familiar, to what made her a success. She is concentrating too much on the morose if you ask me.

I have to disagree with Ian. I have seen many wonderful collodion images here and elsewhere as well. When the process doesn't interfere with the image, it can lend quite a stunning result that can't be duplicated easily, if at all, with film. I would remind Ian that the same could be said (although I am not saying it) for 8x10 platinum prints.

 

[Ian Leake]

I have never been a big fan of hers, but I do think the early work is good, although if her children were fat and ugly, no one would know or care who Sally Mann is today. She benefitted from the controversy, similar to Sturges, of adolescent nudity in her images whether she planned it or not. I am not too comfortable with some of it, but I would take it over Sturges' work any day of the week. At some point though her children, which were the subject of her success, didn't want to be photographed any more and I think that it caused her to try radically different things. Her work changed from a sort of honesty to relying on artifice or superficiality born out by the process of collodion. The fact that she wants all of the defects in the plate, and even encourages the defects, seems to be a crutch that could be the result of her insecurity after her great success. The images that came after her family work haven't been greatly received, and the dead body images even resulted in having a show cancelled. If you see this in the documentary, it clearly shows her questioning what was happening. Her return to photographing her family, by photographing her husband, can be seen as an attempt to return the familiar, to what made her a success. She is concentrating too much on the morose if you ask me.

That's pretty much how I see it too.

(snip)I would remind Ian that the same could be said (although I am not saying it) for 8x10 platinum prints.

I totally agree. And I've made some of them

 

[SuzanneR]

I must admit that I don't really get wet plate collodion. Yes, it's an interesting and demanding process, but the argument that dust, crackles, blurs and thumbprints somehow enhance the photograph doesn't cut the mustard with me. That's a bit to much like art school conceptual art for my liking.

With exception of Katie Cooke's fabulous still lifes, I don't think I've seen a single wet plate photo that wouldn't have been better made with film.

It feels to me that in many cases, photographers are adopting wet plate either because it is fashionable or because they have lost their confidence. Neither of these are a sound foundation for making good art.

I know this is partly a matter of taste, but it's also more than that. Boring pictures are boring pictures, even if they are made with a fashionable process.

I think that's the biggest challenge for wet plate. Caveat, I've taken a workshop in it, and toyed with the idea of using it, but it's one of those mediums that seems to take over the message of the picture, so it's hard to use, and use well, where the medium enhances the message, and not become it.

I like Ellen Susan's portraits of soldiers... somehow the process brings to mind the whole history of photography, and the history of warfare (they recall a lot of Civil War era images in the U.S.) that I find really interesting a full of questions. And they are quite honest portraits of those soldiers heading into harm's way... for what?

She's far more careful with her process, and though the occasional flaw may be a good thing (or not) Mann relies far too heavily on being sloppy, which is too bad... I think the work suffers for it. Still, the Proud Flesh series is quite moving, and if they were made with a bit more care, I'd probably respond even more favorably.

 

[patrickjames]

I should say too that history will likely look more kindly on her recent work than the art world does now.