On Film - Linda McCartney.

[stray cat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yesterday I visited the exhibition of photographs by Linda McCartney that has been curated as part of the 9th Ballarat International Foto Biennale in Australia. A great review of this marvelous exhibition, with which I fully concur,  can be read here: https://www.vogue.com.au/culture/lifestyle/time-capsule-linda-mccartneys-most-iconic-photographs/image-gallery/35f1e5efc6f82e9ee9dcd673ac424ebd It is my personal reaction to the impact of these pictures-as-objects themselves that I wanted to briefly touch on here.

While she was not, strictly speaking, a Leica photographer (although I'm pretty sure she's pictured holding a Leica in one of the pictures taken OF her), the photographs, taken on film Nikons mainly, are just glorious. Mostly, as far as I could tell, baryta and C-type prints from the darkroom, there is uniformly a lovely look that only 35mm film can give you - a sort of dreamier presence, a softness that harbors a sharpness of sorts, all infused with the mystical grain of (mainly) Tri-X or the bright, evocative colours of Kodachrome. Her choice of format really suits these photographs because the quality of the medium - film - perfectly mirror what the pictures are about - a far-off reality of fondly remembered musicians, of glorious times past, of family and intimacy, of misty Scottish landscapes, of memories not-quite lost. The seductive greys and inky blacks of the monochrome prints - wide-ranging in size from small cameos to huge floor-to-ceiling scrolls - are simply mesmerizing. And the grain of course, the grain doing its neo-pointillist thing and lending each picture an almost post-impressionist quality. And then there are the Kodachromes (my favourite was a brilliant floor-to-ceiling portrait of 60s "it" girl Twiggy), the Polaroids, the large format prints, the Cyanotypes, the proof sheets, the album covers, the Rolling Stone magazine covers... all analogue, all preserved moments of cherished times, all fresh and invigorating to new eyes.

Probably, by virtue of her more-famous husband, an immensely underrated artist, McCartney's photographs exist in that space now passed that great photographs exist to perpetuate. In her case, the medium of film not only accentuates those times, its very nature underscores the emotional presence of the artist in her own work. We now of course have a choice that McCartney never had. It goes without saying that the works in terms of content and technique would stand up regardless of whether they were taken on film or digital, had the latter been available to her and had she so chosen. But for me, delighting in these pictures yesterday, the emotional impact could not possibly have been the same. The nature of the 35mm film frame, enlarged by light onto Baryta paper, with the rebate areas visible on the print... that's a pretty unique look. And in the case of Linda McCartney it is a look that absolutely, to me, totally synthesised what I perceive to have been the sensibility of the artist with her work.

 

[Ernest]

17 hours ago, stray cat said:

Yesterday I visited the exhibition of photographs by Linda McCartney that has been curated as part of the 9th Ballarat International Foto Biennale in Australia. A great review of this marvelous exhibition, with which I fully concur,  can be read here: https://www.vogue.com.au/culture/lifestyle/time-capsule-linda-mccartneys-most-iconic-photographs/image-gallery/35f1e5efc6f82e9ee9dcd673ac424ebd It is my personal reaction to the impact of these pictures-as-objects themselves that I wanted to briefly touch on here.

While she was not, strictly speaking, a Leica photographer (although I'm pretty sure she's pictured holding a Leica in one of the pictures taken OF her), the photographs, taken on film Nikons mainly, are just glorious. Mostly, as far as I could tell, baryta and C-type prints from the darkroom, there is uniformly a lovely look that only 35mm film can give you - a sort of dreamier presence, a softness that harbors a sharpness of sorts, all infused with the mystical grain of (mainly) Tri-X or the bright, evocative colours of Kodachrome. Her choice of format really suits these photographs because the quality of the medium - film - perfectly mirror what the pictures are about - a far-off reality of fondly remembered musicians, of glorious times past, of family and intimacy, of misty Scottish landscapes, of memories not-quite lost. The seductive greys and inky blacks of the monochrome prints - wide-ranging in size from small cameos to huge floor-to-ceiling scrolls - are simply mesmerizing. And the grain of course, the grain doing its neo-pointillist thing and lending each picture an almost post-impressionist quality. And then there are the Kodachromes (my favourite was a brilliant floor-to-ceiling portrait of 60s "it" girl Twiggy), the Polaroids, the large format prints, the Cyanotypes, the proof sheets, the album covers, the Rolling Stone magazine covers... all analogue, all preserved moments of cherished times, all fresh and invigorating to new eyes.

Probably, by virtue of her more-famous husband, an immensely underrated artist, McCartney's photographs exist in that space now passed that great photographs exist to perpetuate. In her case, the medium of film not only accentuates those times, its very nature underscores the emotional presence of the artist in her own work. We now of course have a choice that McCartney never had. It goes without saying that the works in terms of content and technique would stand up regardless of whether they were taken on film or digital, had the latter been available to her and had she so chosen. But for me, delighting in these pictures yesterday, the emotional impact could not possibly have been the same. The nature of the 35mm film frame, enlarged by light onto Baryta paper, with the rebate areas visible on the print... that's a pretty unique look. And in the case of Linda McCartney it is a look that absolutely, to me, totally synthesised what I perceive to have been the sensibility of the artist with her work.

 

I really appreciate this very substantive heads up on Linda McCartney‘s work, which has escaped me. I now have seven Linda McCartney books on my wishlist to investigate. I am particularly intrigued in your discussion of neo-pointillism, the complex issue of simple grain, which ushers consideration of post-pointillism. I have been reading that some of her work plays on the attributes of blur, which no doubt underscores the value of grain as one of the characteristic hallmarks of analog film. I recall your past discussions of Antonioni and his benchmark film Blow-Up as David Hemmings as the photographer who grapples for clarity of an incident in a park that he photographed, only to find the evidence of a murder obscured by grain as he in larges a photograph into artistic obscurity. The photograph becomes post-Expressionist art. The gaps become abstract and unintelligible as evidentiary artifact. Thanks, Phil, for raising so many issues for the analog herd.

[IanH]

@stray catthank you for the heads up about the exhibition and thoughtful reflections on her style.

 

I stumbled across her photos through an Instagram feed suggestion, I must have been searching for The Beatles or something similar. The love, warmth and natural candid relationship between photographer and subject in the photo is a joy to see. The Scotland photos are amazing, as you say, regardless of the family. I’d recommend checking out her Instagram feed for those who would like to see more from the archives.

Her Polaroid images and 35/120mm images are superb. They inspire me to document family life today.

 

[BradS]

On 12/2/2021 at 1:43 AM, stray cat said:

....While she was not, strictly speaking, a Leica photographer (although I'm pretty sure she's pictured holding a Leica in one of the pictures taken OF her)....

 

I've seen many photos of Linda with her cameras. Always a Nikon (or two or three). Later in her career, we occasionally see here with a medium format SLR as well. She has also mentioned, in an interview, that she used a Pentax SLR to photograph that Stones on that Yacht.

I've never seen her with a Leica.   I've never heard her or any of her survivors mention her using a Leica.

Can you please post or link the photo of her that looks like she's holding a Leica?

[Ornello]

20 minutes ago, BradS said:

I've seen many photos of Linda with her cameras. Always a Nikon (or two or three). Later in her career, we occasionally see here with a medium format SLR as well. She has also mentioned, in an interview, that she used a Pentax SLR to photograph that Stones on that Yacht.

I've never seen her with a Leica.   I've never heard her or any of her survivors mention her using a Leica.

Can you please post or link the photo of her that looks like she's holding a Leica?

I can tell looking at her photos that she used Nikons. The 50mm f/1.4 and f/2 lenses have a distinct signature that I can recognize. I used them for a while in the late 1960s until I got my Leicaflex SL, so I became familiar with them first-hand.

Edited January 7, 2022 by Ornello

[stray cat]

6 hours ago, BradS said:

I've seen many photos of Linda with her cameras. Always a Nikon (or two or three). Later in her career, we occasionally see here with a medium format SLR as well. She has also mentioned, in an interview, that she used a Pentax SLR to photograph that Stones on that Yacht.

I've never seen her with a Leica.   I've never heard her or any of her survivors mention her using a Leica.

Can you please post or link the photo of her that looks like she's holding a Leica?

Hi Brad, to be honest I’m not really absolutely sure if she was holding a Leica in the picture and I am not too concerned about whether she was or not. I said I was “pretty sure” she was pictured holding a Leica. It was definitely a Leica-shaped camera (no pentaprism) in a quite blurry picture of her rushing past in Sydney or Melbourne, Australia in 1975. I’m sure you could find it with a bit of research if it’s of particular interest. However with a quick search I did find this: https://www.wmagazine.com/story/mary-mccartney-gagosian which certainly confirms she had Leicas (and presumably used them).