Gumprint@aol.com
Date: 02/23/02-05:12:05 PM Z
In a message dated 2/23/2002 11:35:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ARTHURWG@aol.com writes:
> I think the Southeby item must be a photo-copy of an existing picture.
> Arthur
Exactly Arthur. I went to Sotheby's last Saturday and spoke to the director
of the show after trying to figure out what it was as there was no
explanation beside the piece and the catalogue gave elusive description.
An engraving was laid against a wet light sensitive piece of paper.
That piece of paper was then "developed" so that the relief remained.
That in turn was pressed into a second plate.
That plate then could make "indefinite number of prints" or facsimiles was
the word he used.
The image for sale is the only "print" known from that plate.
Yes, it is of a horse being pulled by a boy. It does not in any way look like
a "photograph" as in something documented with a camera/lens.
IMHO I would say it was, at best, a contact print of an engraving. In that
sense, I guess it could be called a photograph. It was not the original
visual recording of something occurring.
Carole
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:22 AM Z CST