(no subject)

[blahflowers]

I wonder why the National Portrait Gallery thought it necessary to describe Susan Sontag as Annie Leibovitz's friend? Are we back in the 1950s?

I loved the work in this exhibition. But what I liked even more was that there was none of those fusty attempts to 'create a narrative', so none of the photos were grouped together but just all mixed up, a couple of family photos here, then maybe one or two portrait shots of famous people, then a shot of 'friend' Susan in the midst of the ruins of Sarajevo, now a large abstract piece maybe, all jumbled in time so more of a series would appear later on in another room with photographs taken years after. And why would I, having paid money to get in, want to know who these people were, what their stories were, why the photos were taken? No, fuck that, much better I should see a portrait of someone I don't know with a name I don't recognise, after all, it's my fault for not knowing these people from the nineties who didn't necessarily pierce the fabric of wherever I was living at the time.

Comments

ARGH YES ARGH.

[kerrickadrian.livejournal.com]

But it's a Portrait Gallery, not, like, a museum or anything. What, do you want to be spoonfed? Why don't you go to one of those newfangled talking exhibitions where you can rent a fancy headset that explains everything?

It's always 1952 in the National Portrait Gallery*. That's the way we like it.



*well, ours, at least. Maybe yours is typically better.

Re: ARGH YES ARGH.

[blahflowers.livejournal.com]

Well, this is only the second or third exhibition they've had that I've paid to get into in over ten years of living in London, so I've decided that I'm not likely to ever pay to go into another exhibition there, just go to the free stuff.

Looking up online I see that Annie and Susan were fairly coy about their relationship while Susan was alive but Annie has been more declarative since so that 'friend' thing seems a bit odd, though I'm happy to believe there wasn't anything malicious intended by it.

[gair.livejournal.com]

Yeah, they never said they were lovers, I think (glad to hear that AL has been more open/out lately, though). So it's possible to give the NPG the benefit of the doubt. Possible.

[janinazew.livejournal.com]

I loved the family photos but her professional work left me cold. Generally I don't mind Leibowitz's images because they are small shoots in magazines, I didn't think most of them worked out of that context in a gallery. There was maybe one or two photos of that ilk that I liked.

[janinazew.livejournal.com]

... incidentally I have this theory that touring exhibitions are always inferior to those that have been specifically tailored to a space. I really would have preferred it if I could have spent time in one room with the family photos in it and lingered rather than marching past a series of images that bored me and jostling to look at those that I liked.

[blahflowers.livejournal.com]

Oh, was this a touring exhibition? I hadn't realised.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Maybe they want you to buy the programme?

I need to ask you questions about LGBT History Month Things!

[blahflowers.livejournal.com]

< gulp > OK. Oh, and there was one of those 'I'd rather fight a chav' people outside the NPG too.