STAR POWER; or, WAY TO GO OHIO, part 10

the wexner center for the arts is undeniably something. and -- it should hope -- columbus will always have that. through the 30th of december, 2012, its gallery displayed annie leibovitz's master set, a collection of one-hundred fifty-six photographic prints selected by the photographer herself to document the story of her legacy. the daily mail reported that leibovitz hadn't intended for the set to be a show, but that the idea for a show at the wexner center just clicked. it is, apparently (this also by leibovitz's word), a legendary place among artists, and it was the place that, apparently, came up with the idea of showing the set. not surprisingly, it was the first place to have shown it. not being an artist (or what the wexner center considers to be an annie leibovitz, anyway), i hadn't had a sense of legend myself, although i suppose i wasn't without an inkling. about a decade before i went to see the master set at the center i had seen issey miyake get an award there (the award from the wexner center, the wexner award), and a few years ago i had been to see that andy warhol exhibit (remember other voices, other rooms?) when it was up at the wexner as its only stop in north america. and i'll admit that there was a special something about standing in front of a print of leibovitz's portrait of warhol next to the same friend with whom i'd experienced the portrait of warhol put up those few years ago in the same gallery. and that, although the moment with warhol itself may not have been the stuff of legends, might be the best way of describing the experience of the master set. i don't know that i'm a particular fan of annie leibovitz. in particular, that photograph of scarlet johansson that the wexner center used for its promotional enlargements is not a favorite of mine (neither among the photographer's other work or among photographs at large). but the master set is about contexts: the context of the set, the context of the artist and the context of her subjects. like her or not, annie leibovitz is famous; and both by definition and as its result, annie leibovitz has had access to fame. i liked leibovitz's photo of linda ronstadt because it was a picture of linda ronstadt. but i wouldn't have known if i hadn't been told by the placard -- although you might have, simply because people might know this particular photo of linda ronstadt by annie leibovitz. no part of linda ronstadt's face is visible in the photo, but because we know that the subject is her, we look at the photo and think that the picture of a woman in hose and a romper-nightie sprawled across the hastily made bed while she fumbles for something on a bedside table is so very linda ronstadt. wild chicken-and-egg goose chase: had linda ronstadt always conducted herself to make us see her this way, or did annie leibovitz decide just what people would be seeing of linda ronstadt? why do i have the reaction that i have when i know almost nothing about either figure? the stuff of legend. and the thing about annie leibovitz is that, regardless of whether she was photographing a decision by linda ronstadt or she was making a decision about linda ronstadt on our behalf, the most important thing is that annie leibovitz got to be there. the one-hundred and fifty-six portraits in the master set are a portrait of annie leibovitz, both assertedly and implicitly so, and each one is essentially just a photograph of something being photographed by that one photographer in particular. their various stylings are just the famous personae of the famous artist. it's only because you've taken the time to stop to look at a very possibly unremarkable photograph of linda ronstadt that was taken by annie leibovitz that you then have made the time to see and to remark that the pattern on the lamp on the bedside table is almost identical to the pattern of the wallpaper.

fast forward and rewind. this past weekend i was in cincinnati. and although i wasn't there specifically for the exhibit, i wanted to see a specific exhibit there before it closed. on sunday, we drove up through eden park to the art museum at just before noon. unfortunately, the exhibit was at the taft museum downtown and was ending that day, so we couldn't stay to take advantage of everything else that we hadn't gone specifically to see. fortunately, the taft is free on sundays too.the exhibit -- which i'd seen advertised on the back of a bathroom door on the last day of a visit to the queen city in december (and before i'd been to the wexner to see the portrait of leibovitz) -- is also collection of photographs. star power: edward steichen's glamour photography. on the bathroom door advertisement that i'd seen there'd been a picture of greta garbo: that most famous one, the one on the cover of that life magazine from 1955. but as it turned out, that photo of garbo was taken by steichen in the twenties, and it was originally published in an issue of...vanity fair? steichen photographed for both that magazine and for vogue, and back when the both of them were under the relatively recent redirection of condé nast. does that say anything? condé nast himself said that he'd wanted to make taste for the taste makers. to deliver to his advertisers, out of those millions of americans, the one-hundred thousand who mattered. the other poster image for the exhibit is a closeup photo of the face of gloria swanson, taken with the intercession of a black lace veil. that famous photo. of the famous gloria swanson. steichen also photographed marlene dietrich, joan crawford, fred astaire, katherine hepburn and gary cooper. winston churchill and amelia earhart. who knew anything about june maccloy from toledo, ohio? but we find her famous in the taft because she was photographed by him. he also did high fashion photography, and the placards explained, without nuance, the nuances of his techniques. the blackest blacks and the whitest whites, and every necessary piece of lighting to make sure they appear as they should. the important parts of a celebrity portrait are the most obvious features. they should stand out. the enduring stuff of legend. fay wray is best known for playing the female lead in king kong, but steichen photographed her as ophelia, the role she never played. one of his most famous photos, one of the placards says, is neither of john barrymore nor of hamlet, but of the latter being played by the former. what the placard forgets to assert (although maybe it's understood implicitly) is that john barrymore playing hamlet was being photographed by edward steichen. which is the most remarkable? what are these silver screen and other legends? who is it that has and keeps creating celebrity? condé nast's elite empire hardly survived the first depression, but the legacy it imparted to edward steichen has been inherited by the legendary photographers of the present. the master set, annie leibovitz's glamour photography: one-hundred and fifty-six figures playing themselves being photographed by annie leibovitz. i have another invitation to the wexner center for this sunday. supposedly it's free that day too. i haven't even looked up what's showing, but i don't expect it to be the stuff of legends. nonetheless, i'll go and i'll see something else where i saw annie leibovitz's portrait of the legendary artist of whom i'd seen another, different portrait in the same place. hmm. in that other leibovitz photo, linda ronstadt's romper-nightie is red, but i doubt that anyone cares.