These small shows were decidedly a success. The exhibitions were not too large to be seen easily. It was not an effort, as larger collections of pictures usually are.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
You cannot always make such big exhibitions, because they consume too much time and energy.
Exhibitions are kind of ephemeral moments, sometimes magic moments, and when they're gone, they're gone.
They weren't great pictures, but they were fun, and they really represented that period of time well.
My first show at MoMA in New York was pictures of new developments along the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains. They were housing developments that were brutal in many ways, that cared almost not a thing for the human beings inside. They were just designed to make money.
Small museums are great. Big museums are a drag.
When you're out there with thousands of people it's probably better to have a bigger show to look at, and it turned out really well and they videoed it for me.
The view outside was much more important than the exhibits.
I can't say that I wouldn't prefer to make small films, basically because I think they are probably more interesting in terms of the material. But every now and again, it's quite good to do a big one.
Maybe I should have taken it easy on the smaller shows especially, but all in all, I have no regrets.
People of my generation who became photographers in the late fifties, early sixties, there were no rewards in photography. There were no museum shows. Maybe MOMA would show something, or Chicago. There were no galleries. Nobody bought photographs.