From: Richard Knoppow (dickburk@ix.netcom.com)
Date: 01/08/03-09:16:57 AM Z
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Weese" <cweese@earthlink.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Disfarmer, Re: outsider art
> 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/
>
Snipping...
As far as glass plates, they were still widely made and
used in the 1940's. In fact, they came into wider use during
WW-2 because the nitrates and acetates needed to make
flexible film base became "essential" war material. They
fell out of use again after the war ended but are still
made. Kodak offers T-Max emulsion on plates although they
are expensive these days.
Glass has always the support of choice when dimentional
stability is of importance.
I suppose one could hunt down vital statistics for the
area although even birth and death records can be
problematic for rural areas and small towns. It should not
be impossible to find out if any of these folks existed at
the time the photographs were supposed to have been made.
--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST