From: Carl Weese (cweese@earthlink.net)
Date: 01/07/03-06:22:08 PM Z
Shannon,
Ahem, it's thirty years ago, but my memory of text that interests me is
nearly as reliable as my memory of conversation that intrigues me...
The story (which quickly came under question) was that he was a recluse, who
made these pictures by having an assistant bring the people into a sudio
room. She (the assistant as I recall the story) told them to "stand *there*"
and they did. He manipulated a camera built into the wall (of course it was
making a large negative, though probably just 8x10): the subjects faced that
wall for their picture to be taken. The camera was literally part of, built
into--and immovable--the wall. The photographer was invisible. The subjects
didn't see him. He saw them through .... I don't remember, could have been a
peephole or a one-way mirror. Logically the former since he didn't have
money and a one-way mirror is expensive. Though of course a large expensive
mirror would make a whole special aspect of how the subjects posed
themselves. Complications. As an aside, if this is how it was done, the
unknown assistant ought to be considered an equal collaborator in the
creation of the work.
Of course it wasn't glass plates--in the 1940's? Where would he have got
them? Film had been in place for half a century.
Judy, was it A.D. who brought up the fakery issue? I don't remember where
that came from, but I'm quite positive that a significant fuss came about
over the authenticity--the reality?--of the Disfarmer opus. It can't but be
interesting that the "bio" section of the website is "under construction".
Since 1973? But I for one belive the pictures. If they're fake, I'm a
monkey's uncle, or whatever.
---Carl
--
web site with picture galleries
and workshop information at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cweese/
----------
>From: Shannon Stoney <shannonstoney@earthlink.net>
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Disfarmer, Re: outsider art
>Date: Tue, Jan 7, 2003, 7:41 PM
>
> Carl wrote:
>
> I think the pictures
>> are wonderful in the context of Disfarmer's biography. If that biography is
>> false, I'd have to admit they're equally wonderful in a different
>> way.---Carl
>
> The biography part of the site was still under construction. Can you tell a
> little bit about what you know about Disfarmer? Was he shooting large
> format?
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST