From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 03/01/03-03:55:43 PM Z
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Sandy King wrote:
> 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.
Sandy, evidence is that the most famous bromoil printers in the US until
the Second Coming (Laughter, Thiessen, Lewis, et al, in our time) were
Mortensen and possibly Misone.
Yes, I know, Mortensen didn't do all that much bromoil, and Misone, whom I
recall as having bromoils in the amateur photo press of the 1930s, was
Belgian. I possibly missed whatever, but I'd still say that although there
may have been x amount of bromoil printed in the US between 1910 and 1940,
it had very little "profile" beyond the salons.... and how much did it
have IN the salons? Christopher Peterson's (very flawed) book, "After the
Photo-Secession: American Pictorial Photography 1910-1955" (reviewed
upcoming P-F #8), like many of its ilk fails to mention medium of most of
the prints it reproduces. It mentions a couple of bromoils, and platinum
prints, maybe 4 total, leading us to assume that all the others -- nearly
100 -- were commercial silver gelatin.
It does name as "among the leaders of bromoil printing" Arthur F Kales of
California, and A D Chaffee of New York, neither of whom appears in any
other photo history I know. And only Kales work is shown, 2 bromoil
transfers. How to describe? How about, highly stylized decorative
allegory ? I quite like them -- infinitely better than most of what
Peterson is attempting to valorize, but that's kind of irrelevant to the
question of how much was done.
My feeling is that if you don't distinguish between most of what appeared
in the salons after say 1920 in this country and what can be taken
seriously as "pictorial photography" you justify or leave standing the
sneers of Weston, Kirstein, et al.
Need I add that Camera Work shows no bromoils, though some 63 or so gums?
Of course its cutoff date even for gum was 1911... before bromoil took
hold I believe. But again, I know of several gums in MoMA's collection, no
bromoil, though anyway I'd qualify beyond simple numbers... possibly now
lost in the mists of time.
The American Annuals of Photography gave a meticulous list of exhibitors
in every salon, world wide, year by year, including the NUMBER of prints
each had accepted, including often the Top Ten -- by country !! With no
mention of medium... Perhaps some archive has the original records... (In
case you want to do the topic in the US -- existing "history" is awfully
skimpy & spotty.)
Anyway, an interesting light on the question, found while I was looking
for something else (which I DIDN'T find !), was the comment in Clerc, 2nd
edition, 1937, a propos of gum-bichromate (as it was then written): "In
France and other countries this method [gum printing] has, during recent
years, been almost totally abandoned in favour of methods employing greasy
inks, and it must often be regretted that such has been the case in view
of the success with which the process is still used."
> ...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 think a lot of people who do it would give you an argument on that...
but on that topic -- I leave you the last word ---
> Bromoil does strike one as a very busy process, and you need special
> brushes, inks, brayers, etc.
Oh, I think I take that back about last word -- I like your term "busy"...
though that may, or may not, mean more or less control?
Whatever....
cheers,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 04/22/03-02:37:24 PM Z CST