Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'
Katharine said: Well, okay, since no one would answer my question I spent the afternoon out in a roaring sleetstorm looking for a copy of the April Vanity Fair to answer the question for myself. You poor thing, but thanks for the sleuth work. Katharine said: I was curious which print of Steichen's was reproduced, in an effort to make sense of the statement made earlier in this thread: ""There was a good article on this image in Photo On Campus about the one that sold for 3 million. That was a gum print, but it says there were three prints of this negative made so I wonder how the third one was made." What's to "make sense??" Katherine said: For the record, the print that sold for $2.9 million was not a gum print, but gum over platinum. By whose assertion is this? Katharine said: There were two other prints made from the same negative; one of them, which Stieglitz gave to the Metropolitan in 1933 and is still in the Met's collection AFAIK, has been analyzed and is believed to be hand-applied colori over platinum. The third, which is owned by MOMA, is platinum and cyanotype. Well, to further complicate your trek, the ArtNews says it was a hand colored BW print that went up for the $2.9 auction. So maybe you should do some more trekking--right to the Getty Conservation Dept. where they can scan it with electron microscopy and REALLY prove what's underneath that luscious print or all three. Obviously all the auctioneers should be more aware of what they are selling since there is so much conflicting information. Chris
|