Keith Schreiber (stillpoint@worldnet.att.net)
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:47:41 -0700
Curtis,
Thanks for the clarification. I misinterpreted your meaning. As I'm sure you
realize from reading the essays, the reproductions were chosen by the
authors to illustrate the text. Personally, I would have preferred the book
to be more like a monograph or catalog of his prints with illuminating
essays, but some would say that isn't scholarly enough. Oh, well.
And you are on target about beautiful some of the prints are. Mortensen had
such an amazing command of light and tonality. It unfortunate that some of
the prints have not been well cared for and are in rather sad condition.
Regards,
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Fant <c392578@showme.missouri.edu>
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Date: Monday, February 15, 1999 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: William Mortensen
>Keith,
>
>it was more the selection of his works than the actual quality that I
>find questionable. It seems easy for some people to see a couple of his
>works, label him and slide him back in the drawer. I read a letter in
>the archive written by Mortensen replying to a company that wanted to do
>photogravures of his work, but he thought they were terrible.
>
>The works were reproduced ok, just selected to slant him in a certain
>direction. Also, once I had finally seen the originals, it is hard to
>describe how beautiful many were. Any reproduction is always a
>comprimise with money.
>
>Hope this makes sense,
>
>Curtis Fant
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:50