Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'
Hi folks, I'm traveling just now, and have no access to a scanner, or else I'd put the image up somewhere for everyone to take a look. Didn't mean to start an avalanche.... But the link that Katherine provided is what's in Vanity fair, though ever so slightly more saturated in the magazine. Tom On 3/9/09 6:38 PM, "Christina Z. Anderson" <zphoto@montana.net> wrote: > 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 > > > > >
|