arkins@banet.net
Wed, 30 Jun 1999 22:35:47 -0400
Dear Judy:
(I'm posting this to the list because I can't find your email address;
pardon the lack of exclusivity!)
I reviewed my yellowed card index prepared during my Eastman House days
(evidence of a once-active academic life), and found the citation:
"Bromoil Transfer: Factors in Inking" June 1936 Camera Craft at pp. 261-66.
Another article I reviewed circa 1979 was "Bromoil Prerequisites:
Introduction to the Illustrations." Camera Craft, August 1937 at pp. 359-68.
I noted in one of your postings that you viewed the Mortensen
exhibitionette in Chelsea, and enjoyed your comments with respect thereto.
Here are a few of my thoughts on the show. The Metalchromes were the reason
to see the show, in my opinion, less for the tableaux depicted than for the
beguiling chromatic quality of the process (which is a tribute to
Mortensen's deft hand with it). The process has such an ingratiating,
charming palette -- rather like two stip Technicolor. A number of the 5x7
prints of the better known images in that show, however, (Shrapnel, for
example), were not "originals"; they were cleverly marketed copy prints
Mortensen made from his original prints and sold to aficionados in
portfolios. (These "portfolios" were advertised in Camera Craft in the late
30s, but I can't tell you how many dealers breathlessly push them as "rare
Mortensens.") Some of the prints were evidently contact proofs of no
particular distinction. It's a pity they had none of his bromoils, because
he really had a sublime hand with that medium. (There was a lovely bromoil
transfer of his Torso (on the cover of Monsters and Madonnas) from the PSA
collection in the "After the Photo Secession" show curated by Christian
Peterson from the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. I took a tortured bus ride
from NYC to Worcester, MA to see it, and was glad I did! There was also an
exquisite Arthur Kales bromoil transfer in it, which really had the quality
of a drypoint.
Speaking of bromoil, may we expect a Post-Factory issue devoted to that
process ere long? I suspect there are a lot of furtive hoppers out in the
hinterlands who would either contribute or read the product with gusto!
I have an intriguing idea for an article for PF: a meditation on two
autobiographies I read of two once-very-well-known women photographers from
the 1930's -- Mme. Yevonde and Dorothy Wilding -- in conjunction with a
review of two recently published catalogues of their work. They were both
pioneers in so many ways (both were eminently successful commercial
portraitists and salon exhibitors, and Yevonde was a prolific early color
photographer), but their autobios reveal intriguingly different slants on
their time colored by their class differences (Yevonde was from a wealthy
family; Wilding was from a lower-middle class milieu).
Is this idea of interest? Must run; I've got to pull an oil matrix off the
skillet. . .
Regards
Joe Arkins
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 11:53 PM
Subject: Mortensen on Bromoil
>
>
>On Tue, 29 Jun 1999 arkins@banet.net wrote:
>
>> Gene:
>>
>> I think there was a Camera Craft article by Mortensen in the late 1930's
>> "Factors in Bromoil Inking" or something to that effect. I will check
>> further for you, if you like.
>>
>> Joe Arkins
>
>Joe, I'd love to know if you find that. I have a recollection of something
>along those lines, but a quick flip didn't locate it. However, I do have
>the Mortensen essay from Dec. '41 Camera Craft:
>
>"The Cart and the Horse: The Ditherings of An Unregenerate Romantic"
>
>This is a defense of bromoil in particular, and that style of printing in
>general... Also, "It is necessary to remind the progressives that their
>beloved glossy print is basically just another 'process', possibly not
>'quaint,' but certainly older than bromoil and some other processes
>practiced by us funny old Romantics."
>
>Further on: "Weston, I am sure, feels no limitations in the medium
>that he uses. Glossy prints & small apertures best express the static
>patterns that he finds most significant." I loved that line, one of those
>quoted in the Mortensen article...
>
>If you're just looking for M. on bromoil, by the way, I THINK I recall a
>chapter in one of his books. When I get a moment (ie., off e-mail!) I'll
>check...
>
>Judy
>
>
>> New York, New York
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gene Laughter <glaughter@earthlink.net>
>> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>> Date: Saturday, June 26, 1999 8:33 AM
>> Subject: Re: "alt process" in NYC: Mortensen
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Judy Seigel wrote:
>> >
>> >> the main feature is NOT as it may seem, How to Blow up the World
>> >> from your Bathtub (that's only 3 pages out of 48), but William
Mortensen,
>> >> his times, influences, inspirations and methods --
>> >>
>> >
>> >I find it interesting that, while Mortensen published many books and
>> magazine
>> >articles in Camera Craft, offering all sorts of technical advice, he had
>> >little to say about bromoil or bromoil transfer, a process in which he
>> >excelled. Other than a couple of short articles in Camera Craft on
bromoil,
>> >which acually had little to say on the subject, Mortensen seemed to keep
>> his
>> >bromoil techniques extremely close to his vest. His now pricey book,
>> >**Monsters and Modonnas,** did give a bit of info re: papers used and
ink
>> >consistencies. Perhaps he was more sharing with his students at his
>> **school
>> >of photography?**
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >
>> >Gene
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:38