U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Pond-moonrise (was: Re: Steichen image in April's 'Vanity Fair'

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

Hmm, interesting. I'm not sure what year the Met acquired the Gilman Paper Collection, including the moonrise print that they sold at auction in 2006, but I'm assuming it was after 1989, the year of the Chicago exhibition, which means that it was most likely the other Met print, the one they've had since 1933. Oh, and besides, the Chicago exhibition isn't listed in the exhibition history of the other one (the one the Met sold at auction) so it has to be that one. That print just looks overall brown on the Met site; I wonder if it's just a really poor electronic representation of the print, or if it's faded that much, if the applied color was once yellow and blue- green? Joe, do you remember the colors of the print in the exhibit?

Gosh, trying to figure out what something actually looks like by looking at jpegs is driving me a little nuts.


On Mar 17, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Keith Schreiber wrote:

The entry in the exhibition catalog says it's the one from the Met. FWIW, it also describes it as a "platinum print with yellow and blue-green pigment".


On Mar 17, 2009, at 9:02 PM, Joseph Smigiel wrote:

Anyone know which version was in "On The Art Of Fixing A Shadow" exhibition? I saw it in Chicago and was absolutely enthralled by it.


On Mar 17, 2009, at 10:34 PM, Judy Seigel wrote:

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.)



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?



the actual $2.9 million print?