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

[Katharine Thayer <kthayer@pacifier.com>]

Yes, I said the same thing myself, earlier in the thread.   But that  
doesn't explain why a print that should be deep blue with black trees  
and a yellow moon is shown on the museum's website as overall brown  
with just a faint touch of blue in the sky.   Maybe they've just got  
it totally wrong, which is why I was joking that Judy should go up to  
the Met and see if she can ascertain for herself whether the print  
has actually faded that much.

I think I'm done here; I'm getting tired of repeating myself to  
people who can't bother to read the thread.
kt


On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Jack Brubaker wrote:

> It seems that a print that had held up well from early in the  
> century till the Chicago show (80 years) and has been in storage in  
> an archival setting since then would be unlikely to have changed a  
> whole lot since the Art Institute show.
>
> Jack
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Katharine Thayer  
> <kthayer@pacifier.com> wrote:
> Jack, ordinarily I would agree with you in general on this point,  
> but in this case, where we have three eyewitnesses on the list who  
> saw the Met's  print in Chicago in 1989 and were so struck with it  
> that they still remember it,   reporting that they remember the sky  
> as a deep blue or deep teal-blue,  and also we have the Met's  
> conservator's report that the pigments used to color the print were  
> yellow and blue-green, I'd say the circumstantial evidence points  
> to the surmise that originally, all three prints were (roughly)  
> similarly colored.
>
> Besides, if the print had looked 20 years ago as it does on the Met  
> site now,
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dyarrc
>
> I have a hard time believing that it would have captured people's  
> imagination to the extent that they still remember it 20 years later
>
> I've checked the dates on these, and interestingly, the platinum  
> with applied coloring (the Met print) was made in 1903; the gum  
> over platinum and the cyanotype over platinum were made the next  
> year, in 1904.   For whatever that's worth.
> Katharine