Of course Adams was not the only one taking images at the time. But the negs would have to conform in general ways to Adams' way of working, the formats he used etc. to even be plausible. I think Adams worked with large format -- what type particularly? etc etc. I'm not saying it is legit - I certainly don't know. But I feel sure that real, objective scrutiny when applied can get much closer to the truth. To toss out the claims because the head honcho of an estate said so may be specious. Who knows why the owner had them 10 years before addressing this. We'd have to know the facts on that.
K. On Jul 28, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Bruce Hershenson wrote: > But the key issue is that this guy just now got huge publicity that was > presented as if these were just found, and now it is revealed that he has had > them for years and no one believes what he wants to believe. > > Obviously Adams was not the only one taking images at that time. Are images > by ANYONE else worth anything remotely like those by Adams. > > Of course it could turn out they are really by Adams, but its been years and > he has not yet convinced anyone, except of course the guy who "appraised" > them for $200 million (and who no doubt will profit if he can convince a > buyer they are real). > > Bruce > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Kirby McDaniel <ki...@movieart.net> wrote: > Exactly, Colin. It cannot be put better. If I were Turnage, and without any > conclusive evidence, I would cringe to see a statement like that in print. > It's silly. How will he look if the negs turn out to > be real. Crazier things have happened. > > Kirby > > > On Jul 28, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Colin Hunter wrote: > >> That's a self-defeating analogy to make regarding the negatives being next >> to worthless because they are like a musical score and all the value is in >> their interpretation. If that was true then an original score in Mozart's >> hand would also be worthless. I don't know if Turnage is right or wrong >> regarding the provenance of the negatives but his logic regarding their >> potential value is clearly off. >> >> Colin Hunter >> >> On WednesdayJul 28, 2010, at 11:50 AM, Kirby McDaniel wrote: >> >>> This is interesting, of course, but inconclusive. One doesn't know the >>> personalities involved. Sometimes (not saying this is the case here) >>> estate owners do not want to admit any other owners, no >>> matter what. The stories about Warhol works are legion. >>> >>> But Turnage is quite correct about the interpretive nature of Adams' >>> printing. Much of the value >>> is there. But to label the negatives "next to worthless", if they are >>> Adams negatives, is laughable. >>> >>> I'm sure there are methods for really getting at the truth of this -- but >>> that may involve cooperation >>> between the parties. It doesn't sound like there's been much so far. >>> >>> Kirby >>> >>> On Jul 28, 2010, at 5:36 AM, Bruce Hershenson wrote: >>> >>>> Adams heirs skeptical about lost negatives claim >>>> >>>> http://tinyurl.com/2b4qmrm >>>> >>>> I love this part: >>>> "It's an unfortunate fraud," said Bill Turnage, managing director of the >>>> Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust. "It's very distressing." >>>> >>>> Turnage said he's consulting lawyers about possibly suing Norsigian for >>>> using a copyrighted name for commercial purposes. He described Norsigian >>>> as on an "obsessive quest." "We've been dealing with him for a decade," he >>>> said. "I can't tell you how many times he's called me." >>>> >>>> AND THIS: >>>> Beverly Hills art appraiser David W. Streets said he conservatively >>>> estimated the negatives' value at $200 million, based on current sales of >>>> Adams' prints and the potential for selling never-seen-before prints. >>>> >>>> Turnage called that figure ridiculous because the value of Adams' work is >>>> in his darkroom handcrafting of the prints, and said the negatives are >>>> next to worthless. >>>> >>>> "Ansel interpreted the negative very heavily. He believed the negative was >>>> like a musical score. No two composers will interpret it the same way," he >>>> said. "Each print is a work of art." >>>> SOUNDS LIKE THIS SHOULD BE ON THE NEXT ANTIQUES ROADSHOW! >>>> >> >> >> >> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com >> ___________________________________________________________________ >> How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List >> Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu >> In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L >> The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. >> > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu > In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: lists...@listserv.american.edu In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
