From: Sandy King (sanking@clemson.edu)
Date: 02/27/03-09:21:46 PM Z
Judy Seigel wrote:
>Do you base the 60% figure on work in
>archives? On magazine how-to's? On salon records? Or?
I based the figure on both salon records and on published work in
magazines, and the methodology was that I used everything that I
could put my hands on. Not scientific perhaps but still a good
snapshot I think. I should also clarify that my figures are based
primarily on European sources, and included nothing from Germany
since I can not work in that language.
>
>Judging by the popular magazines, I'd say the most popular were silver
>gelatin prints -- made either by "working up" large size film with
>varnish, blade, pencil, et al, or ditto with paper negatives.
You are correct about the greater popularity of silver gelatin prints
(made to look like gums, bromoils, oils etc. through soft focus
technics, various kinds of combination printing, etc). I should have
clarified that my figures included only the control processes, plus
carbon and platinum, although the later two amounted to less than 1%
of the total number of prints.
> An article
>on bromoil OR gum OR carbon was always presented as something out of the
>ordinary. And I also found that in shows of archives (as in MoMA or NY
>Public Library) bromoil is VERY rare to non-existent. Gum just medium
>rare.
I don't know of any study that has been done in this country of the
type I did, which was part of my research on Spanish Pictorialism.
The results might be very different.
>
>But I've also thought that somewhere about 1930 or so the small format
>became prevalent among "amateurs" -- I gather you can do bromoil by
>projection, but not gum, which may have been another reason for its
>popularity.
I think you are right in that the popularity of projection printing
is the reason for the greater popularity of bromoil from about
1910-40. Also, bromoil is really quite a bit more flexible than gum
in that you have ultimately greater control of tonal values, or at
least that appears to me to be the case.
> I also suspect that bromoil may have been slow to revive with
>the 1970s movement back to the forefront because for quite a while it was
>an article of faith that you needed a non-supercoated paper, which was
>nearly extinct. Then it was decided/shown that you didn't, but as I
>recall, it was a while before that was generally understood (or
>'generally" in the "alt" niche).
Another good point. For a long time people believed it was impossible
to work bromoil because of the lack of super-coated papers. Ditto for
carbro. But as we now know, that was incorrect for both processes.
>
>As for which is most beautiful, colored clay on a cave wall is exquisite
>if you're gifted -- but I think the simplicity of gum gives a great
>freedom... That is, sure you can spend a month doing 24 coats, but you can
>also just wipe on, dry, expose, soak -- and finished. It's certainly
>easier to learn than bromoil, which again proves nothing (I mean nothing
>is learned to the level of feeling free without long practice)... but it's
>all very subjective, isn't it? Gum just seems very direct to me, and
>bromoil very indirect -- and no solvents needed for cleaning brushes &
>tools.
Bromoil does strike one as a very busy process, and you need special
brushes, inks, brayers, etc.
Sandy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:10 AM Z CST