Sandy
I think the whole point in writing history is that you have a point of
view, and makes personal judgements. I don't seriously intend to write one
(did think of it once, but life is too short...). And it would include a
number of pictorialists - including particularly some of the much neglected
British figures from the period 1890-1920 or so.
However even some of the more glorious late flowerings of Pictorialism would
not essentially detract from my main treatment of it as a force that was
spent by the twenties.
<<Well, Peter, if you ever do get around to doing your history I will
consider it remarkably incomplete if you don't devote space to the
pictorialists, and most certainly Echague. Why can not our so-called
histories of photography at least acknowledge the importance that
the late pictorialists like Echague, L. Missone, A. Keigley, even
Mortensen, had on the photography of their period? >>
First I shall be in very good company as I cannot think of another single
volume history that has mentioned Echargue! The only context in which I
think I would want to discuss him and Mortensen was if I was approaching the
history of amateur photography from a largely sociological standpoint. This
would actually I think be an interesting study, but largely peripheral to
what I regard as 'the' history of photography. Or of course (for Echargue)
in a history centred around the pigment processes.
Peter Marshall
Family Album/Gay Pride - http://www.dragonfire.net/~gallery/index.html
Also on Fixing Shadows: ----------- http://fermi.clas.virginia.edu/~ds8s
Future Press and elsewhere... E-Mail: petermarshall@cix.compulink.co.uk