From: Richard Sullivan (richsul@earthlink.net)
Date: 02/27/03-10:18:58 AM Z
Sandy,
Some ruminations.
By 1937 when Jordan wrote that, bromoil was a photographic sideshow. And to
add to that, so was gum.
Of all the alt processes only platinum, copper gravure, and carbon
maintained any popularity and then only with a very small niche of fine art
workers. Platinum was virtually dead from the start of WWII till the late
70's and did not take off until the early 90's. Carbon mostly survived as
color carbro. Gravure was more in the camp of printmaking that photography.
Of course we are talking about popularity and whether that is the key to
processes greatness is open to debate. However, having a historical body of
great images I believe does enhance the perception of a process being "great."
If I were to ask a group of alt-photo sophisticates to recall in their mind
a few great gum images they will most likely call up Demachy, Puyo, Eugene,
Kuhn and other turn-of-the-centuries pictorialists. There will likely be
few if any images in gum that would be shared by any after WWII. Most of
these great gum works are known through historical publications as the sum
total of gum work by the major members of the pictorialist school that is
extant is probably under 1000 prints.
The same question asked about gravure or platinum will conjure up many
images both contemporary and historical. Carbon enjoyed wide usage as a
portrait media and mass market photographs. Ponting's large carbons of the
Robert Scott (Great Scott) expeditions probably sold in the thousands and
today sell in the $5000.00 range.
Several factors contribute to a processes popularity. Permanance is one but
not paramount as silver gelatin is adequate enough for most uses.
Repeatability is another and gum and bromoil fall apart in that regard and
thus I think is why it sits on the sideline. There are just not enough gums
or bromoils out there to make it a popular medium.
One might say that popularity is not a sign of greatness. One could argue
that Johann Mendelstammer was as great as J.S. Bach, but if no one ever
plays his work it is hard to argue his greatness.
Gum in the hands of a master is a beautiful medium, no argument
there. However, I do not recall ever seeing a modern gum print in a major
auction catalog going for a price. decent or otherwise. Until we have some
modern masters producing really great gum prints its greatness will have to
wait.
--Dick Sullivan
At 01:43 PM 2/26/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>I have seen the same claim made for both carbon and platinum.
>
>However, with all due respect to Franklin Jordan, and to all contemporary
>gum printers, Jordan's statement is not consistent with the popularity of
>pictorial printing practices from the time of their first use until
>Jordan's period. Historically gum was the first of the so-called control
>processes, and there are certainly many wonderful images that have been
>made with it over the years. However, when bromoil was introduced around
>the turn of the century it quickly became far and away the most popular of
>the pictorial processes. Almost everyone abandoned gum for bromoil and
>during the period from 1910-40 bromoil was by far the most popular of the
>two processes. From my research I would calculate that over 60% of all
>pictorial work between 1910-40 consists of bromoil, and gum less than 20%.
>And one certainly can not say that bromoil was more popular because it is
>easier to work. To the contrary, it requires at least as much skill to
>work as gum, and perhaps even more one gets into the transfer procedures
>which gives really exquisite work.
>
>Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Geez, Dave. A monarch. Gum is a MONARCH. What are you smoking up there this
>>winter?
>>
>>I have been proud to say this to myself, and to say it repeatedly and
>>steadfastly: Self, I says, I categorically am not one of you gummy bears. I
>>have no interest in gumming unless and until I should lose all of my teeth.
>>I don't know who this guy is whose memory not runneth over, but it certainly
>>hasn't been me. Gum is something you step in on the sidewalk, and drag home
>>in stringy, sticky clumps.
>>
>>But I've got to hand it to you, Dave. This king thing takes the cake. Okay
>>already, you WIN. Some dead guy says gum is king, and you swear by it
>>yourself for 66 years, so okay, already. I hereby break with the opposition
>>camp. I come over there (not a here yet, still a there), and I don the funny
>>little costume, and I will play gummy bear. You just wait, though. With my
>>luck, I will turn into a worse zealot than the rest of you combined: a
>>king-loving American. What my Irish ancestors would say to that, I don't
>>dare think. Probably best not to go there.
>>
>>Mike Healy
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Dave Rose" <cactuscowboy@attbi.com>
>>To: "Alt Photo List" <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:41 AM
>>Subject: Re: gum printing
>>
>>
>>"Gum is the monarch of printing processes; they crowned it long ago. Since
>>the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, it has held undisputed sway
>>as the aristocrat of photography."
>>
>>Photographic Control Processes by Franklin I. Jordan, F.R.P.S., 1937 Galleon
>>Publishers, Inc.
>>
>>66 years later, I'd have to agree with Mr. Jordan!
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Dave Rose
>>Cactus Cowboy
>>Big Wonderful Wyoming
>>cactuscowboy@attbi.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:10 AM Z CST