David Bayles:

I have the honor of introducing Al today. We all know that there are important photographic traditions that we've inherited in this region. In my opinion the most important of those is the tradition of photographic knowledge being passed on hand to hand and face to face. The most important thing is the connections between photographers in this region. In Colorado, Utah, and Nevada and Idaho, and most importantly in California, through his workshops, through his writing, through his open door policy, through his tolerance for all things photographic and his intolerance for BS, Al Weber has done more to promote the connectivity among photographers than any other person in the region, which if you think about means he has done more than to promote connectivity between photographers than anybody else in the region and probably the world, for that matter. So, with deep respect, for his contribution to the connectivity between us all, here's Al Weber.

Al:

How many of you have prints on the walls? Now, how many of you submitted prints and they’re not on the walls? Jim, will you keep a distance between us?

When Robin and David came down to talk to me about what we were going to do with this hour, we thought one of the most important things is to address this business of the juried exhibits. I’ve been at it now for 46 years, looking at people’s photographs and judging them. And you always wonder afterwards if you’ve made a mistake, and I probably do.

You have to take into account some things and in my opinion a lot of people that enter juried exhibits don’t really know what’s going on. What I would like to do is to discuss some of these things that might help you in the future, and open your eyes.

I’m very supportive of this organization. I’ve been around this room along time. What this new group of people have done is really exciting. All of us that are local want to do what we can to make sure that it does just exactly what they want to do. Their integrity is above reproach. So if anything I say that sounds critical or negative, remember I’m still on your side. .

When I looked at the prints for the first time, the names were covered so I didn’t know who went with which photograph. Now that the prints are all up, and the names are revealed, I find a lot of wonderful surprises for me, and I hope for you, too. Some people that I never heard of before and what a delightful experience that has been, that these people that have been kind of quiet and in the background have stepped forward and said, “Yeah, I’ll get in there and slug it out with you. And you can see my prints, too.”

What I would like to do is run through some of these things with you and then open it up for questions or, and/or comments. As this is a growing experience for you. It’s a growing experience for me and we hope it’s a growing experience for the Center. We don’t have many centers like this in the United States and so we’ve got to make sure this one flies. I think it’s really going to do that.

Last month when I judged this show there were 700 hundred entries. That’s quite a few prints. And, since that time, like I mentioned, I’ve thought back about it. Did I make a mistake about some of these prints, possibly. Did I worry about that? You damn bet so. But, you can’t let that get you down. You’ve got to go ahead and keep moving and if you didn’t make this time, start planning for the next time.

I did the best I could based on my experience and also based on the parameters set forth by the Center. And the last thing, which is the most important to me, is based on my intuition, and that comes from being a photographer for some time.

For any judge, the main tool that they have to work with their intuition. All the rest of things are secondary, but it is how you first respond to a photograph, and when you are looking at these prints, that’s 700 of them, going through a projector. Every once in a while without any rhyme or reason one of them would just scream at you. You don’t want to identify that reason because you take away the romance. You take away the reason there if you start to dissect it and say, “Well, it’s got a perfect black, and a perfect white, and its razor sharp.” It’s the ones that really reach out and smack you one.

No one can please everyone. You try to, but it can’t be done. Therefore my advice to you as a photographer, from a photographer, is what you need to do is to develop an audience-- people who are important to you that you wish to communicate with or share your art with--and not worry about the people that are outside of that audience. I’m really high about not worrying about the people that are outside of my audience. Even Ansel Adams had his adversaries. Hard to believe maybe, especially in these hallowed halls.

I taught for Ansel for 18 years in Yosemite. There might be someone that would come in with color or with alternate processes or conceptual work and they wanted Ansel’s approval in the worse way. And it wasn’t going to happen. So, the next conclusion is is that I would never enter an exhibit where I didn’t have a thorough knowledge of the judge; where they come from, what they like and the whole thing. I mean if you’re doing conceptual color, digitally and the judge is someone my age who still gets up in the morning and genuflects to f/64, you know you’re out of it. You don’t have much of a chance, so why bother? Why develop ulcers over something that is not necessary? Go on to the next exhibit, and don’t worry about it.

I have no criticism of Ansel Adams and John knows that. John’s Sexton's over here and I know there are several others of you knew him. I thought very highly of him. I considered him, I considered myself as one of his circle. But, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, even Ansel had his adversaries. This is something for you to think about when you’ve been rejected.

Andy Grunberg was the Executive Director of Friends of Photography, which was Ansel Adams' organization started right here in 1967. He did an article that appeared in this minor little paper called the New York Times, and I’d like to quote you what Mr. Grunberg said about his boss. “Ansel Adams is widely acknowledged to be second rate, second generation photographer. Most people are repelled by the Norman Rockwell like popularity of his work.” How’s that for keeping your job. (Laughter)

A few years back they had a show in San Francisco called Ansel at 100. A photographic curator up there named Sandra Phillips put this show together. This is her handiwork. In the same New York Times she had an article and she said, “I personally have not found much of Ansel Adams work that you and I know to be very important or moving.”

So, when someone criticizes you, you kind of have to consider the source, and not worry about it too much. The audience may not include people that are important to you. This is one of the tough things. You may find that you made a photograph that everyone else in the world likes, except your wife. This becomes a dilemma. It is something that you have to confront and understand who it is you are talking to. Showing and sharing work is necessary. The idea of photographing for yourself and keeping them in the closet is a no go. We need to get our work out. We need to share. We need to show. We need to communicate with other people. That’s one of the main reasons we do this. But you don't need to get ulcers trying to please everyone.

As to a juried exhibit, my advice is to always to read up on the juror. No matter how non prejudiced the juror might try to be, they’re still human beings and have a lifelong developed taste. They can’t help it. It has to play a role. It’s crucial to know just where the judge is coming from, and keep that in mind every time you consider entering a show.
When you pick up an announcement about some show some place in Scotts Bluff, Nebraska maybe it says, the juror is staff, that should be automatically out. That’s like going to college and your studying some esoteric thing nuclear physics and it’s taught by staff. That means you get a TA.

I’m a little defensive with my photography, because I have 79 years of scar tissue. I don’t see any reason to beat myself up more and if some of you are slightly less than 79 and some of you are slightly over the 79. You got to look out for number one. You’ve got to take care of yourself.

Read the rules carefully. Most people, the first thing they do is throw the rules away. When I asked Jim and Hunter about the rules on this particular exhibit, I think they said something like, “30 percent of the entries did not adhere to the rules.”

Next is, if there’s a theme what is it? In other words, if the theme is nature, this may not be a good place to put in an architectural photograph. You know, it sounds, it sounds obvious. But, I’m afraid it isn’t.

Why is the show being put on? There are two primary reasons why shows are put on that have nothing to do as you as a photographer. They have to do with raising money or promoting the organization. You are nothing more than a means to an end as an exhibitor, and don’t you forget it. There’s nothing wrong with that as long as you know it and understand it.

I think this show was put up for the betterment of the Center. This to me is an incredibly good reason to do it. But so many times you see an exhibit with an entry fee of $10.00 a print and they get a thousand prints and give away a couple thousand dollars in prizes and the organization stuffs $8,000 in its pocket.

There is a game going on, You can fight the game and get ulcers or you can play the game, like poker, and enjoy it.

One of the things I want to know right away in an exhibit, will the judging be from the prints themselves? Will I as a judge be able to actually put my hand on a print, or do I have to look at a slide? Slides rarely reflect delicate or subtle tonalities. This little print right there and the one right around the corner here, the orchid, almost didn’t make it because the projector didn’t show the fragileness or the delicacy of the imagery.

Those working in alternate processes usually lose the finesse of the process. Whether it's a large or small print is gone. If someone does a nice small print like this and makes a slide of it, it comes out on the screen the same size as one of these 16 x 20’s. So, the actual size, the intimacy, maybe of a photograph, is killed by projection.

Projection, as a rule, makes bad photographs look good and good photographs look bad, but it's here to stay.

In days long gone when the photograph was judged directly from a print, there was not chance for error. Jim’s got a print for me to look at. He hands me the print. I look at it, and say yes or no. If it’s yes and it’s in the show, you turn the print over and slap a label on it, done. You’ve seen the print, and it’s there. That’s the way it was when I judged in 1963 starting at the Monterey County Fair, which was really fun. Everything, every print was handled, and there were hundreds. As the prints come in more and more of them you get more and more helpers. You just keep rolling them in.

If we're going to continue this new way of doing things, we should consider how reliable is the computer program that is handling the slides? I don’t know about the rest of you, but my computer seems to have a mind of its own. And frequently when I push the left button something happens totally different than what I intended and this nauseating little voice comes on and says, “It’s not my fault.” You ever hear that? The technician that attempts to keep my computer working refers to computer error as, “A result of inherent mechanical hiccups.” And so you could be the victim of just a computer error.

A major problem in this last show was the poor quality of the projected images. We would look at a image sometimes; sometimes it would even be hard for me to tell me what end was up. It’s your responsibility, as a photographer, to make a competent slide that can be seen. That means every slide made is made on a copy stand. Every slide made is properly lit. The camera is stabilized. So many of the slides we looked at were handheld, you know, how people do today. It used to be when we did cameras we put them against our forehead, but now everyone walks around with a camera out here, and your chances of getting a sharp photograph are a little bit retarded.

Competition slides are not snapshots. They have to be very, very good. The first generation in a film camera is the film itself, from the original tree or rock. The second generation is the print. The third generation might be a slide. And every time you move a generation like that you lose quality; that is a physical fact. So, what you need to do to combat that, is keep everything as clean and as orderly as possible. Making good slides is not something you do casually.

The monitor on your computer is most critical. Many people work with a monitor that is way out of whack. I go into people’s places and you look at the screen and it’s all green and they just adjust to it. If you are going to do this business and use your computer the monitor has to be calibrated and it has to be deadly accurate. It’s the only way people like Jim, and the rest of the Center and anyone that puts on a show, can give you a fair shot at seeing your work.

Now, but we’re into it. We made slides and what can we do to combat some of this problem? We know that every generation that we go through loses some quality. And so how can we tell in advance what’s going to happen? You can take your print before you make a slide and put a piece of tracing paper over it. That obscures a lot of the detail but it also shows you about what’s going to happen when you make a slide. Or if you just take the print and hold it up to a strong light backwards, look at it from the back side. The thickness of the paper will start to obscure some of the detail and it will give you an idea of how the photograph may copy.

All, these two procedures will aide you but they are not unlike scraping burnt toast. It’s still burnt toast. It just isn’t as dark as it used to be. One of the problems is the next time you are out in the field and you see a nice photograph like this one up here, you say, “Gee, I want to make this photograph, but if I put it in a competition and I have to make a slide of it, it’s not going to work.” So, you don’t make a photograph. You start to affect the way that you work. And this is, to me a crime. I don’t like that at all. But, it happens.

In the 1970’s we were all enamored with Cibachrome. Landscape photographers all of a sudden started making photographs that didn’t have a clear blue sky. Because you couldn’t get the dust off of the transparency and you couldn’t spot the little black spots off the Cibachrome print so the answer was, “To hell with it, I just won’t make the picture.” Not acceptable at all. And you notice that Cibachrome is gone.

Doing the show with slides is mechanically to the advantage of the people putting on the show. It’s easier, it’s faster, and it takes less labor on their part. So, it’s here to stay, or is it. What I would like to do is start a counter group and maybe to do this successfully we’ll have to get an address up in Haight Ashbury. And that is let’s return judging and jurying photographs from the print. It’s time. I look around this room here and I think this is really a good show. And of course, the reason I think it is a good show is because I like it, you know. You may have a different opinion, but that’s your taste.

I look at some of the prints and they’re very, very carefully made. I hate to see that taken away just for the convenience of a clerk. It doesn’t make sense to me. So, what I’m going to ask Jim, and the rest of his crowd to do is to seriously consider coming up with some way to work directly from a print. And if you’re interested in going along with me call me, call me. ) Because he may not listen to me, but if I walk in with a dozen of you, that will help.

Well, that wraps up the problems of working with juried slides, but I would like to bring up one other element while I have this floor, and it’s maybe another 30 years before I get invited again, so I got to get all my licks in now. The big cancer in photography and all art is nothing to do with photography or art or sensitometery, the big cancer in the art world is politics. You may walk in here and see a print, it doesn’t happen here because it wouldn’t happen here, but a lot of times you’ll go into a gallery and look at prints and you can’t understand why a print is up. And then you find the photographer is sleeping with the owner. Or that it is someone’s cousin or relative or that they have made a large contribution.

There’s a lot of reasons and they are all political and this is something that you have to put up with. But, being forewarned is a lot better than going in as a naive photographer that just thinks if you build a better mousetrap people will come to the door, not the case at all.

So what do you do about this business with dealing with politicians? One time, I don’t know how many of you are old enough to remember Jack Welpott? Jack was head of the photography program at San Francisco State, for many, many years and it was a very strong and powerful program, and one of the best in California for a long time. But, Jack, one year, was invited to be a judge for the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts. One might think something like that would be above reproach. Before the judging, Jack was given a list of photographers who would get an award regardless, regardless. And 28 people got awards without being judged, that’s the politics that we are dealing with.

This happens a lot. This very organization has been accused of that before Jim and his crowd took over.

What can you do about it? You can sit back and do nothing. You can complain about it. But let me, here’s a little quote for you. “Never quit, keep smiling, fight like hell, and never let it get you down.” That is a direct quote from Ansel Adams to me when we were putting together the exhibit at Mono Lake, which was a protest to the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power for taking away all the tributaries to the lake. Ansel wasn’t involved with the actual of doing of this but he called and monitored it and gave us amazing support.

Don Worth and Steven Johnson and I put that show together and eventually it was seen by 3.5 million people and Mono Lake went down 40 feet in the 1970’s and Mono Lake is up 40 feet now. So, once in a while you can slug it out and have the pleasure of winning. You may lose once in a while but even if you lose you get kind of a good feeling for taking a couple of whacks at someone you don’t like. (

So, if you do this protest, what does that do to your art? Is that a diversion if you all of a sudden become very involved in the politics of Mono Lake or whatever, does that hurt your art work? It’s been my experience that it does not. It’s been my experience that it is the other way around. This energy that comes from being angry and upset and aggressive transposes and goes right to work for you in your photographs. It’s worth it. It’s worth it to get in there and punch it out.

In the meantime if you chose to enter a show, juried by slides, and are rejected, all I can suggest that you determine why you were rejected, correct if possible, another words make better slides or make better photographs and move on. And stay with it. Good people win, learn from their mistakes, if the mistakes are indeed yours and above all keep in mind the definition creativity.

One of the biggest problems we see in all photography is derivation. I taught for seven years at MPC. One of the things that happened a lot a student would come in and maybe they would be from the Midwest or the East Coast and they would discover Point Lobos and they would bring in a photograph, a nice photograph of Point Lobos that they saw for the first time. And I would go to the cabinet and open up an Edward Weston book and say, “Look on page 38”. You found the same thing not because you were being derivative. You found the same thing because photographers look for good things, you know. It’s just much yours as it was Edward's; he just got there first.

One of the things I really like about this show is there is little if any derivation. This is a good example of personal expression and that I stand for. Okay, I’m waiting for the sticks and stones.