Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'
Good grief, what a mixed up mess, but Judy, you've got it partly
figured out anyway. Let's start over.
Tom mentioned that in the April issue of Vanity Fair, p. 61 if I
remember right, there's a reproduction of a Steichen that's in the
current Steichen exhibition at Greenberg. He said it was identified
as a "palladium ferro-prussiate print" and wondered what that was.
I said it was cyanotype over palladium. The print is a portrait of
a guy with a cigar in his mouth; if you don't have the April Vanity
Fair handy, an electronic reproduction of it can be seen here:
http://boyculture.typepad.com/boy_culture/2009/03/through-the-years.html
That's really all there was to it; the rest was a very confusing
diversion. The thread was somehow sidtracked without explanation or
warning to a discussion of the Steichen pond-moonrise prints of which
there are three known to be still in existence and one of which, a
gum over platinum, was the Steichen print that sold for $2.9
million. There was some discussion about those prints, but it had
nothing at all to do with the print in question, the one at Greenberg
that was reproduced in Vanity Fair.
Hope that's clearer,
Katharine
On Mar 14, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Keith Gerling wrote:
The April issue. Don't suppose this could be an April Fool's joke,
do you?
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Tom Hawkins wrote:
Well, since I am the one who 'let this cat out of the can of
worms,' (as my
grandmother would say), I wonder if we have any list members who
are in NYC
and might be able to visit Greenberg and give us their impressions
of the
image(s) in the show? Judy???
I gather we're talking about 3 different things here:
1. an original (one of 3 originals I gather,tho i'm not sure if
anyone has seen them & if we know which one).
2. a repro in Vanity Fair
3. A print being shown at Greenberg gallery...
It's not clear (in my welter of 150 e-mails) if the print at
Greenberg is an "original" -- or if so, if it's "the" original
referred to.
As for the image in Vanity Fair... NO image I've ever encountered
in a mass magazine relates to an original faithfully except by
accident, so any conclusions about the kind os subtleties the
experts on this list are parsing from it are dubious. The guys
(almost certainly guys !!!) at the printer's doing prepress can
make Photoshop stand up, sing Dixie, and dance the macarena. I mean
they are GOOD -- for their own purposes.
For instance, two of 3 prints I had in Chris James's 2nd edition
were QUITE changed in the pre-press -- one of them much for the
better (thanks fellas !) because the subtle contrast would not have
shown up... the other added a border where I had none on a 4th
side, the lack of which evidently bothered them, and odds are in
fact it looked better on the page that way.
I only dwell on this (I was, as noted VERY satisfied) because these
parsings of possibilities in the (or *an*) original print may be
irrelevant...
J.
|