Zoë Zimmerman

b. 1965, American
Bio Statements Books Available More Portfolios

Covid Vanitas
Portfolio Introduction

Zoë Zimmerman: Pandemic #7 (Day #153), 2020

Zoë Zimmerman: Pandemic #17 (Day #200), 2021

Zoë Zimmerman: Pandemic #22 (Day #213), 2021

Zoë Zimmerman: Quarantine #48 (Day #60), 2020

Zoë Zimmerman: Quarantine #53 (Day #68), 2020

Zoë Zimmerman: Quarantine #31 (Day #39), 2020

Zoë Zimmerman: Quarantine #39 (Day #47), 2020

Zoë Zimmerman: Pandemic #11 (Day #190), 2021

Zoë Zimmerman: Quarantine #57 (Day #73), 2020

How to use our image viewer

How to purchase a print

Zoë Zimmerman Bio

Chronology
1965	Born, New York City

1972	Moved to Taos, New Mexico

1981	Worked at The Amon Carter Museum printing the negatives of Laura Gilpin.

1986	Began focussing exclusively on alternative process printing. Produced limited edition portfolios for Aaron Siskind as well as making albumen prints for other artists

1992	Went to Italy and began photographing everything vertically

1998	Reinvented the matte albumen process

	Top of Page

Awards
2001	NEW MEXICO ARTS Art In Public Places Award

1998	Ansel Adams Trust Award

	Top of Page

Solo Exhibitions
2015	Of Men: Strength and Vulnerability, photo-eye Project Space, Santa Fe

2007	Softer, Fenix Gallery, Taos, New Mexico

2007	Acts of Nature, The Harwood Museum of Art, Taos, New Mexico

2003	Elements of Containment, Photo Eye Gallery, Santa Fe, NM

1998	Manufatto di Maternita, Photo Eye Gallery, Santa Fe, NM

1997	Contemporary Albumen Prints, Opus Gallery, New York, NY

1994	New Work: Albumen Photographs, Photo Eye Gallery, Santa Fe, NM

	Top of Page

Group Exhibitions
2006	Noble Processes in a Digital Age, John Stevenson Gallery, New York, New York

2005	Authenticity of Memory, Houston Center for Photography, Houston, Texas

2004	The Art of the Process, Glendale College, Glendale, California

2003	Contemporary Art/Taos, The Harwood Museum of Art, Taos, New Mexico

2002	Large Format Photography in New Mexico, ¡Magnifico! Art Space, Albuquerque, New Mexico

2002	Contemporary Alternative Photography, White Room Gallery, West Hollywood, California

2002	“Sunworks,” Contemporary Alternative Photography, Art Institute of Boston, Boston, Massachusetts

2002	Collect, Plan B Center for Contemporary Arts, Santa Fe, New Mexico

2000	New Mexico 2000, Museum of Fine Arts, Santa Fe, New Mexico

1999	Four Photographers, The Harwood Museum of Art, Taos, New Mexico

	Top of Page

Collections

The Museum of Modern Art, New York,New York

The Houston Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, TX

Harwood Foundation of the University of New Mexico, Taos, NM

The Harry Ransom Center for Humanities, Universtiy of Texas at Austin

Museum of Fine Art, Santa Fe , New Mexico

Paine Webber Collection, New York, New York

Top of Page

Bibliography

Photography's Antiquarian Avant-Garde. The New Wave in Old Processes. Lyle Rexer. 2002 (photo-eye Cat# AB246)

THE BOOK OF ALTERNATIVE PHOTOGRAPHIC PROCESSES. Christopher James. 2001 (photo-eye Cat# ZB835S)

ANSEL ADAMS GUIDE - BASIC TECHNIQUES OF PHOTOGRAPHY II. John P. Schaefer. 1998 (photo-eye Cat# LB071)

Top of Page

Education
1982 - 1986	Rhode Island School of Design, BFA Photography

Favorite Photography Books

Certain Places, William Clift

Megaliths, Paul Capanigro

Pleasures Taken, Carol Mavor

Bone House, Joel-Peter Witkin

Platinum Prints, Irving Penn

Zoë Zimmerman Statement

Artist Statement
Elements of Containment An artist’s statement by Zoë Zimmerman The work presented in this show is a departure; not a dramatic one, for some aspects of these new images do relate to my older work. It is a departure along the lines of going for a walk as opposed to getting on a train. Put simply, I have begun to look inward to find my images whereas I used to look out. In order to create that early work I became a conduit between a reality which provoked an emotional response from me and a fixed image which (if successful) had the power to evoke a similar emotion in the viewer. My modus operandi for those years was much as Henri Cartier Bresson described it: what the eye does is to find and focus on the particular subject within the mass of reality: what the camera does is simply register upon film the decision made by the eye. As I begun using large format cameras and utilizing antique and obsolete photographic processes, I also began to reject this ‘decisive moment’ school of thought. My recent works exemplify this rejection on two levels. Firstly there is the exclusion of the ‘mass reality.’ The images are created rather than found. There is a rearrangement of the sequence of events that leads to the existence of the image. The emotion (the looking in) is identified initially and brings about the motivation to create the image. An image which illustrated a state of being or an emotional state. The other level is a rejection of the ‘decisive’ aspect. Much of this work consists of diptychs which are in essence very short movies. There is movement involved and an enticing ambiguity created. These images purposefully raise more questions than they satisfy. They speak of ones fascination with twins. Are we compelled by their difference or their similarity? They address duality. The process of creating a photographic image (or any image for that matter) is fraught with decision, with choice; which negative to print, which print to present. The diptychs strive to reveal something of this process of choosing by including choices for the viewer. I have essentially solidified an ‘indecisive moment.’ As pertains to the content of the work I have concerned myself with certain states of being which I have experienced. It is a dialogue with the world loosely based on experiences of my child bearing years; a saga of mindful waiting, of containment, of primal elements, bodies of water, growing, thawing, burning. I believe birth and death to be the only true mysteries left and each contains an element of the other. Once when I was somewhat vulnerable emotionally, I came across an image made by Julia Margaret Cameron in 1865. In the foreground of the picture is a half-naked child of perhaps two years old, prone on a velvet divan with his head turned toward the viewer and his eyes closed. Behind him in profile is a young woman. The title of the picture read ‘Shunamite woman and her dead son.’ When I read the title, I began to cry, suddenly struck by the profound sadness of the document. But then I looked more closely at the photograph. The boy’s shirt is gathered awkwardly under his arms revealing the entirety of his belly, loins and legs. Knowing the entirely unspontaneous nature of picture making in 1865 it became instantly obvious to me that the boy was not dead at all. The reason for not straightening his shirt and presenting him more like the formal postmortem portraits of the time was that the photographer did not want to risk waking the sleeping child and ruining her tableau. I was instantaneously comforted by the knowledge that the boy in the picture was not dead. . .and then it occurred to me that seeing as the picture was taken over 130 years ago, indeed at the time I was viewing it, not only the boy but the young woman and the photographer were dead as well. This knowledge however did not bring me to tears. This experience raised a question in me about the inherent nature of photographs. Most of them have death in them somewhere. Because the moment depicted in the image is forever gone and what we see is only a shadow. But it also brought up another point for me. Often, we see and react to what we are told to see and react to. Artists can be deceptive in how they evoke an emotion or response to their work. For example Joel Peter Witkins’ photograph ‘Woman Breastfeeding an Eel’ has always intrigued me, but it’s the title that gives it weight. I see no eel when I look at the image. But when we read the title we want to see the eel suckling, we want the Victorian boy to be dead, we long to be manipulated, really. To be moved. In this age of digital photography and computer enhanced imagery, manipulation is only a click away and I wonder if the truly fantastical, the honestly fantastical in photography could be a thing of the past. Though I have spoken both of a rejection of reality and an attraction to manipulation when it comes to the tradition of image making, my methods remain antediluvian. The photographs presented in this show are perhaps performances of a sort, but each still represents a real event.

Process Statement
At the turn of the last century Albumen printing, previously the most popular form of photographic printmaking, became obsolete. It was ousted by gelatin silver paper which was and is a more dependable, stable and easily mass-manufactured method of printing. It was not, however , more beautiful. The albumen print has a subtle delicacy and clarity of detail that has not been surpassed by advances in photographic technology.

And so, at the turn of this century I find myself immersed in the antediluvian methods of printmaking which were surrendered to convenience and affordability over one hundred years ago. Presently gelatin silver printing is losing it's footing to digital photography for much the same reasons.

After years spent mastering the traditional techniques of albumen printing, I have continued in my exploration of the process, taking up where the practitioners of the 1800s left off. My prints are produced by means of my own recipe and method, using the traditional albumen print as a general reference. I have not invented a new process so much expanded on the capabilities of an old one.

Zoë Zimmerman Books
Available from photo-eye

Featured in:

Photography's Antiquarian Avant-Garde. The New Wave in Old Processes. Lyle Rexer. 2002 (photo-eye Cat# AB246)

THE BOOK OF ALTERNATIVE PHOTOGRAPHIC PROCESSES. Christopher James. 2001 (photo-eye Cat# ZB835)

ANSEL ADAMS GUIDE - BASIC TECHNIQUES OF PHOTOGRAPHY II. John P. Schaefer. 1998 (photo-eye Cat# LB071)