Working with computers can be seductive. and the more I do it the more seductive it becomes. But really it is at least once removed from the real thing. That is why I decided to go back into my own red light district  and make prints of new work that languishes in negative envelopes on my enlarger table.. Oh, the poor enlarger…a Leitz  Focomat with a long pole that has gone through a fire that cracked it’s lens and condenser.  I think you would agree that it was schmucked.

However, if you believe in resurrection  you will know it has been given a new life. New lens, new condensers, new base, new easel etc. When I say new I mean about 40 years old. It looks old and so do I. Good people offer me their seat on the Montreal metro.

So with all this blather, what  did I actually print?  It  was   Flatiron Building NYC 2001 .  I needed a negative that would test my refrigerated Agfa Classic Paper.  It’s fine. First look at the content, then look  with special emphasis on the tonality.   It has a range of whites and blacks that would have made John Ebstel happy.

See Yann Le Mouel Auction,  Paris 21 November 2009 (#154)

george

Flatiron Building, NYC 2001                                                                ©George S.  Zimbel

In 1954  there was a lot of new construction  in NYC…everything tall. I realized that there were views of Manhattan that had never been seen before and suggested a piece titled “New Views of New York” to the N.Y. Times magazine. They said yes. One of my main remembrances, besides the fantastic views was walking up 60 flights of stairs to get the vantage point I wanted. This summer,  while vacationing near Lac Taureau Quebec, Elaine and I saw a practically vertical new road. We decided to drive up .  What we saw was a view of the lake that  had not been possible before. Using  my 48 year old M4 Leica  &  57 year old Leica Elmar 35mm lens, (my nostalgia kit)  I shot a few frames of Tri-X. The result is not as dramatic as the NYC photograph, but I find it calming to  have this grainy Elmarish image and have decided to use some of my  precious refrigerated Agfa Classic paper to make a print which I intend to enjoy. Manhattan Looking South 1954   &   Lac Taureau Quebec 2009     ©George S. Zimbel 1954/2009                                                  

by George S. Zimbel

After two weeks hobbling along as the result  of  a bike crash, I was finally able to go confidently towards my studio/archive with my Leica M4 & old 50mm Summicron at the ready. I forgot to mention Tri-X, always  Tri X..until there is no more.

I live in Montreal, a culturally hip city. Multi- lingual, multi-ethnic,multi -artistic, multi-restaurantic..a wonderful environment. When I am in the photography mode, I don’t hide myself or my camera. I am up front, and I hope my pictures are up front.

That creates a problem. Montreal is in Quebec which adheres to the “Code civile” or “Civil code.” What this means in simple terms is you cannot take photographs of people without their permission. France has the civil code and France has spawned some of the greatest street photographers, so you can deduce that they practiced their art despite the legal restrictions and were celebrated for it.

So back to my trip to the studio. When I got off the metro  I heard the music of many small voices…it is like a magnet for me. I set my f- stop , speed and distance. There must have been fifty little kids sitting on the floor at the platform across the way. Their camp counselors were leading a sing-song. It was a good scene and I got off one frame.  Immediately a young woman yelled: “Monsieur, pas de photos des enfants..c’est interdite.” (“Mister, no photographs of the children. It is forbidden”.) I was across the tracks and there was a train coming so I wasn’t able to go over and explain that I meant no harm. I never mean harm with my camera.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t photograph in Quebec. It is too interesting not to photograph so maybe sometime I will end in jail. Not this time, but for me today will be a black day, photographically speaking.

“I’m going to a museum..someday.”  Lily

I was surprised to find  how many of my dogs photographs had found their way into  museums.  Here’s a list as of 2009:

1. Cat & Dog, Bona  Fide Farm 1976 : MFAH, SBMA

2.. Looking Down at Spike, Montreal  1998:  MFAH

3. Woman & Her Dog, Bklyn 1968: MFAH, MACM

4. Boy & Gun, Bronx 1969 :ICP, OAG

5. Black Boy & Great Dane, Harlem 1960’s :MFAH,IVAM,ICP

6. Blonde Girl & Black Dog 1962 : ICP, OAG

7. The Little Girl,The Fence & The Dog, Bedford Stuyvesant : MFAH

8.  George & Lily in the park 2004:  MBAM

Am I crazy?  Am I really suggesting photographs as an investment? .  I am talking about the work that Christie’s and Sothebys  photo experts love, but won’t offer for sale because they don’t meet their  financial  minimums.  The word nurture is not in their vocabulary. Elaine made an important observation. She knows about the ups and downs of the photography market. She has experienced it with me for over 50 years. Never try to paraphrase a writer, but this is roughly what she pointed out .

Now that the interest rates have lowered lower than a bass in Don Giovanni, an investment in an under $5000 photograph can give you a seriously excellent work. The hunt will  open the doors of photographic history which is always fascinating. These  prints will increase in value over the years..not in a crazy way of some of the  conceptual  contemporary work, but in a steady and realistic way.  I know., I live off the proceeds of my print sales.

There is one very large difference about this type of investment..it can bring you pleasure every day.  You can look at it in the morning; you can look at it at night; you can share the pleasure with your loved ones and friends. If it is  properly  prepared  and displayed it will last  longer than anyone now with their feet on the ground.

A good photographic gallery is the best place to get up close to this work…the actual print. The gallery people are surprisingly helpful with information about the history and era of the prints they show you. They will give you the same attention even with a modestly priced print. They want to cultivate people’s interest in photography.

A   first step  is to view the images  online. It has never been easier during the history of photography. My website is now approaching viewers from 50 countries. These viewers have the opportunity to be interested in my work… or not.  It would be boring if everyone liked the same genre. I am just happy they see the work. That is a first step. It is not the same as looking at an actual print.   You can look at a digital print: you can look into a silver gelatin print.

Try it, I think you will like it.

Have to stop now. I am washing the first prints of “Three Guys, Manhattan 2009” and they need me.

george

When I first started exhibiting my photographs I thought it odd that the galleries wanted prints signed on the back, but not on  the front . Evidently  this was the custom in exhibiting photographs.

Then I saw  some wonderful  Lartigue prints with his distinctive  graphic signature on the front, and realized that  it anchored the work. Now I do sign mine front and back. (Front in permanent ink; back in pencil) . It’s not a matter of ego; it’s a matter of authorship. You would not see a short story published without the author’s name below the title; you would not see a painting without the artist’s signature somewhere on the canvas.  At one time I thought that the signature would be a distraction from the work; now I think it adds substance,  not visual but historical. The image is always primary.

Today the issue has raised it’s pointed head again. I received a beautiful book which included one of my photographs “ Courtesy of…”   I was very pleased with the reproduction and placement until I realized that the title and my name were nowhere to be  found near the picture…A voice in my head said ” Go to the back of the book” ; another voice  said “Go to the back of the bus”. Sure enough, there were all the credits, I found myself flipping pages back  and forth in order to find out who shot what. A frustrating experience. It shouldn’t happen that way.

To quote my old friend  Jack MacAndrew of Prince Edward Island, “that’s the view from here”…..george

Hello ****
When I was in NYC recently for the AIPAD meeting, I went to a workshop presented by The Center for the Legacy of Photography [George Eastman House].

It was titled “What makes a photographic print a masterpiece?” There were some very distinguished curators on the panel, and when all was said and done it had to do with the particular person’s love for a particular image. It didn’t matter if there were processing problems, even some stains. You could tell they really loved the particular photograph they were describing.

I realised that we have become intimidated by the word “pristine” …never my favorite. So, when I got back to Montreal I started to look at some of my battered vintage prints , most of them negativeless due to my fire in 1966. One I thought you would like to see is “Fiction Department 1960’s” and I am sending you a direct scan.

I seem to be busier than ever, even though I am mindful of the wreckage of the financial system..there are some advantages to not being a “high ender.”

Hope you are well and enjoying the new grass in Central Park.

Sincerely,

george

New York City is my photographic home. That started in 1947.   The urban energy  makes my shutter finger twitch, the light is made for black & white, the people are made for a documentary photographer..enough text.

I made the photograph “Three Guys, Manhattan 2009 “ last week while in town for AIPAD…..george

Courtesy Fraenkel Gallery, San Francisco

I NEVER MET HELEN LEVITT, BUT I HAVE BEEN ON THE SAME PAGE AS HER, BOTH  PHILOSOPHICALLY AND IN BOOKS.

SHE KNEW THAT THE RICH STREETS OF NEW YORK WOULD KEEP HER BUSY FOR AS LONG AS SHE KEPT PHOTOGRAPHING, AND SHE KEPT PHOTOGRAPHING FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

SHE’S GONE, BUT SHE IS NOT GONE…THE LEGACY OF AN ARTIST.

george

Matt at MOMA  1960′s                                                                                                         ©George S. Zimbel

There are many ways to view photography these days.  I suppose that online is now the favorite, but the thrill of viewing an exceptional print of an exceptional photograph is still special.  Of course you can do it in a museum (Bravo museums!)  but that is a quiet  procedure often aided by the good docents who volunteer or sometimes only by  a headset with a voice that tries to tell you what you are seeing.

The AIPAD  Show  at NYC’s Park Avenue  Armory is  a chance to see extraordinary examples of the photographic art, and if you have not been wiped out by the neo-capitalists, you can even buy a print that touches your soul. I am not being poetic: Every day I see my print of   Marcel Bovis’s  “Paris Bar”  hanging on the wall in front of my computer and it gives me pleasure. Every day. My kids pitched in to buy it for me in the 80’s. That’s a lot of pleasure.

I don’t know which if any of my work will be on view because each dealer has a concept of what they want to show in a given year. They have the  pulse of the market and they have to sell to survive. These great galleries represent me and will be happy to greet you at AIPAD: Stephen Bulger Gallery, Toronto  (Steve is the President of AIPAD),  John Cleary Gallery, Houston,  A Gallery of Fine Photography, New Orleans,  Fahey Klein Gallery , Los Angeles,  Staley Wise Gallery, NYC

There are many events connected to this show and they will all be listed on Aipad’s website, but I particularly want to mention  the gala for the John Szarkowski Fund at MOMA  because  John instigated my first  MOMA acquisition  with the question:”Why aren’t you in our collection?”

Hope to see you there….george

P.S.  I  received word that  John Cleary Gallery will have my Marilyn Monroe Portfolio of 9 prints, boxed with text.(#5 0f  21 currently existing..printed and signed by me. This portfolio was created at the suggestion of the late John Cleary during my exhibition “Documents”  at the gallery in 2000.  They  will also have my print “Matt at MOMA 1968.”