Re: $2.6 million gum print?

Somewhere in the lit (I read it at the time, years ago, it was on display at
MoMA), his methods are described. They include the length of time it took
him to make a single print -- measured in days -- and his multiple technique
which included painting directly on the print.

-- see the article in today's NYT

-Lew
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: $2.6 million gum print?

>
> Friday's NY Times art section has an article about the sale (p.E 30) by
> Randy Kennedy, possibly accurate, or not. Kennedy explains the "perfect
> storm" of qualities that enhanced the price, also that the Met had two of
> the 3 prints extant (both given by Gilmore), & sold one of them.
>
> He doesn't specify the number of gum coats (probably not on record), but,
> having seen the print at MoMA & in reproductions, I've always figured that
> for the sky to be blue, the gum had to be exposed through a positive -- or
> ?? (Same for Flatiron building.)
>
> The Steichen print is lovely, tho the Stieglitz "Hands" of O'keefe's hands
> acting extremely silly (in large display with the article) is one of the
> most artsy-fartsy photographs on record (not just opinion, but certified
> verifiable fact).
>
> Judy
>
Received on Fri Feb 17 17:37:32 2006