Re: Pond-moonrise (was: Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'

[Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>]

On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Katharine Thayer wrote:

> ... But the bottom one, the cyanotype over platinum, it seems 
> pretty certain to me that the cyan is printed with a reversed negative.  I 
> don't know if MOMA has analyzed this print the way the Met has analyzed 
> theirs, but since I don't know otherwise, I'm taking on faith that they know 
> for sure that this is cyanotype over platinum and not hand-applied color over 
> platinum.  I'd be willing to bet big bucks that he simply colored in the moon 
> (notice that he didn't think to color in a reflection of it in the water).
Fools rush in... Which is to say, it looks to me from the 3 images on 
Katharine's site, that the most (only?) truly beautiful one is the 3rd, 
that is, with the blue sky and the possibly hand-colored moon.

Do the others actually look like the small version on my old monitor from 
a website grab shot -- in which case, could this be a case of reputation 
causing value?  Whatever, I'd only bid 1.9 million $ (or was it 2.9 
million?) for the last one.

With again thanx to Katharine... (And what could they do to her? That jail 
is already full up.)

J.

> http://www.pacifier.com/~kthayer/html/Steichenpond.html
>
> As for the Flatiron, that doesn't seem quite as clearcut to me, and besides 
> there are so many copies of that image (mostly reproductions from a copyneg 
> made from the original gum print) that it's almost impossible to say which 
> one we're talking about.  The Met alone has five versions of it, I think, and 
> the version they show on their website doesn't correspond by date and 
> description to any of the ones listed in the catalog of the Stieglitz 
> collection, so it's all pretty confusing.  But would you say it's probably 
> true of this one?
>
> http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/pict/ho_33.43.39.htm
>
> Katharine
>
>
>
>
> http://www.theartwolf.com/imagenestAW/steichen_pond.jpg
> the actual $2.9 million print?