Kallitype Archivality

Richard Sullivan (richsul@roadrunner.com)
Sat, 27 Apr 1996 21:00:03 -0600

I still have a few Kalli's I made in the late 60's and early 70's and also
had the privilege of seeing one in a friends house in a frame over a @ 25
year period of time. The friends Kalli currently shows some staining from
the edges BUT (and a big but) it was on cheap Crescent Board and MOUNTED
WITH RUBBER CEMENT! (Ok, I was young and naive.) The few others I have do
not seem to have changed at all, and mind you, these prints lived in the
Los Angeles air for 25 years. A gave away quite a few signed images to
acquaintances in that period. I can only imagine that future archivists will
immediately assume they are platinum if for no other reason than my
association with platinum photography.

Judy's mentioned my comments in my Labnotes of 1982, those were based on
conversations I had with my good friend Stephen White the vintage photo
collector and dealer. I was interested in seeing some vintage Kallitypes,
but Steve said that he had never seen any. Since he was considered one of
the authorities on vintage photography, I thought this strange. Much of the
vintage stuff pops up as complete collections in the manner of "Great
Grandad's prints." Since there are plenty of vintage and Pictorialist
prints that are not in very good shape floating around such as faded
albumens, etc., it seems unlikely that anyone would have systematically
culled out thebad Kalli's and not the others. On the other hand, I can't
recall any of the big names of the period being associated with Kallitypes,
so I conclude that the Kallitype was the medium of the photographic under
class. Platinum paper was expensive even in 1900. I am sure that some one
more knowledgeable on the list will be able to confirm the lack of big names
in the Kalli world. If such is the case, it could be concluded that the
Kalli was made by insignificant photographers and thus suffered ignoble
trashing by the heirs.

Dick Sullivan
Bostick & Sullivan
Santa Fe, New mexico