Wow, that was so inspiring and beautiful it brought tears to my eyes. Thanks for sharing.

THE MEANING OF TODAY’S PHOTOGRAPHY VIA THAT BEAUTIFUL WOMAN OF THE PAST, IMOGEN C. AND THE PHOTOGRAPHIC DARKNESS AT SAM

In earlier years, I was moved by many of photography’s early heroes and Imogen Cunningham seemed a major player and an absolute delight as a representative. I still think of her as having been an absolute stellar incredibly beautiful woman who the promoters of things female should flaunt much more than they do. Her photography represents the dawning of photographic awareness of the early years of the last century and is full of a wonderful exploration, experimentation and playfulness. She brought in the context of her time and condition something remarkable. She is one of the few artists that the Northwest can legitimately celebrate as truly local and notable. A gifted firecracker she was.

If I remember right, a local group of fellow fine art photography enthusiasts of the mid-seventies reported to me then that they had found original prints by hers in the photo bins of Salvation Armies in Seattle for mere pennies. Amazing if true.

I did see the presentation of her prints at SAM in recent days. I was not moved as much as I have been at times by what I saw of her work but there is a question as to whether it was the display space there that seems to disrespect the very photographs on its walls or something about how times have changed photographically. I don’t fault the motivation or choices of the curatorial folks as to what’s hanging on the wall. It’s about SAM's space dedicated to photography!

If SAM respected photography wouldn’t its space be equal to that given to painting, sculpture, African American arts, etc., bathed in copious light and given lots of room so a viewer was not cramped but could move back a long ways from the work to see it from many perspectives? SAM’s photography space fails miserably at showing equal respect for photography as other media there. Instead, photography is tucked into a narrow passageway that causes viewers to bump shoulders and clog the viewing angles and this photo tube is dimly lit in a way only a goofy museum conservationist could love.

The curatorial staff seems happily oblivious to this and in some kind of serious denial about one way to read the meaning of this photographic exhibition space. This institution, of course, is kind of like a Vatican of art. It has huge public issues to fend off and rigid gestures to defend. It must try to convince the ordinary public that what it does is near artistic perfection and grand, and must convince the very rich financial contributors that their mutual viewpoints are connoisseurist to the max and simultaneously entertain a noisy if not easily discontented contemporary art community that they are hip. It must be kind of nuts to be a curator or manager there. They have my sympathy. Major institutional realities can be so stifling to open thought.

I once heard a SAM person explain its history with photography. The incident with the Photo Council was a whitewash. It’s understandable but the truth may be more interesting. These are all good people and in the end there is probably some practical but bazaar kind of greater good as a result. An institution changes often what it is and an institution that is in debt tens of millions of dollars needs to control its image and circumstances for sure.

The lighting issue is interesting. As I understand the argument for the dimness it is that it has been decided by major potentates of preservation that this is just the right amount of light to preserve these delicate objects for the maximum of time. The position is rather modern. It is oh so scientific in appearance. It is ever so politically correct museologically. Is there a Pope of museums somewhere? Let there be less light seems some kind of motto, a mantra of some professionalism. But is there really such a light damage issue when it comes to the normal black and white silver print, the modern lightjet material or the inkjet print? I don’t think so and, further, these prints deliver their maximum beauty and mystery shown in brighter light. Anyone who has printed black and white prints in the darkroom knows how the middle tones and shadow details are so dependent on the light showing on the print. Photographic prints come to life in a light that is not available at the SAM photography corridor. While SAM floods paintings in the other galleries with a brightness that respects them the lowly photograph gets the closet light treatment. Go figure. Is this really saving something or offering something less for the viewer? When photos pop up in other parts of the museum they seem more alive. The exhibit of Johsel Namkung a while back at SAAM was bathed in glorious light and given generous elbow room regardless of its importance.

The Henry doesn’t seem as bad and they preserve the sensitive items by covering them with a cloth that can be lifted for momentary viewing. One of the places you can see photographic prints at their best is Gail Gibson’s gallery. A great deal of natural light floods in from windows and is complimented by good interior lighting. But there they are to be at their best because they are for sale and because the proprietor appreciates something about the viewing of photos. Why is SAM preventing us from the experience of good bright light and of having room to maneuver close and back so as not to bump into other viewers? SAM has more room now that Washington Mutual is gone. Why can’t they dedicate a generous room to photography bathed with fine light like they have allocated Coren Hewitt or Jacob Lawrence’s room? I think it’s a respect thing that they haven’t owned up to. This sad, dull little tunnel of a space architecturally communicating between large art respecting rooms was perhaps some kind of afterthought of some early SAM management team giving a dark and claustrophobic roll to the photography experience there.

SAM has had an interesting roll in photography. I can remember the large meetings of photography enthusiasts at the early Photography Art Councils of SAM in the mid-seventies. They were held at the Seattle Center. At that time, SAM seemed to be admitting that photography had arrived as maybe an acceptable and interesting art form. There was something new in the air. It was somewhat of an odd initiation of a curious concept I will admit but it gathered a motivated group of Seattleites dedicated to discovering what ‘art’ meant to photography. I figure this group became an irritant at some time and maybe an embarrassment to some of the management of SAM at sometime back and the group was summarily terminated without a tear. SAM after all has a reputation to preserve, a conservative public persona to maintain and a rowdy bunch of photographic enthusiasts nipping at its ankles was perhaps uncomfortable and difficult to allow for. The true history of SAM might be really interesting if someone bothered to get out the poop scoop and report it. In a psuedo-sophisticated museological move the SAM management announced it would absorb the Photo Council into the more appropriate and larger classification of the Contemporary Art Council. One can argue this point academically but it undoubtedly created friction with the photography enthusiasts of the area but solved their disturbing presence problem. It should be noted that even though photography can be seen as coming under the heading of contemporary art it can surely be thought of and studied as a thing in itself. It can be further noted that the subject of art photography is hardly ever a subject at the meeting of SAM’s Contemporary Art Council. It would not be wrong to ask if this represents a kind of condescending and less than friendly support of photography by SAM. The wound seems rather visible, historically and in the present circumstance. Some might feel SAM’s support of photography is somewhat lackluster or often kind of marginal. Some might. Photography does show up there to be sure. But this has often been said of its support of local artists. Is the SAM Gallery a token to this? Someone there is surely going to point out that I’m wrong about their connection with photography and they’ll say something like they’ve done this and that and this proves I’m wrong but if you think about it it sounds a lot like a defensive press release from the Mayor’s office over some criticism of the Mayor’s work. Denial is so easy when it comes to large public institutions. It is a question of respect not tokenism or partial immersion into the waters.

The Contemporary Art Council is a strange beast these days. It is strongly controlled by a central SAM staff that leads and controls the member’s experience. Maybe the Photo Council members got a little heady as to who was to make SAM decisions.

Getting back to understanding and appreciating Imogen Cunningham. What would Imogen feel compelled to do in these times? Her work has to be judged in the context of her time. Margaret Bourke-White, Frida Kahlo and Georgia O'Keeffe were vibrant unusual creative women of her times. Would Cunningham’s approach translate into today’s contexts? Not sure but I’m thinking times have changed for photography and maybe someone like Jennifer Zwick or Margot Quan Knight fill the bill as to continuing the tradition of female artists using photography in a new light. As do many more. But things have changed.

So, Jen, the lead is about making mistakes about what we do and don’t like. I’m thinking of the last words of Jesus to God (a strange concept is you think about it), something about, “forgive them for they know not what they do.” Humans are a trip, eh? Have I lost any chance at a B. Bowen now? Just my opinions here.