I was quite keen to collect a few decent prints some years back.
I was already collecting posters, but compared to that I found taking
the leap into photography too daunting.
Not wanting to risk being lumbered with a later print (at best), I've
kept giving it a miss.
On 28 Jul 2010, at 21:24, Kirby McDaniel wrote:
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.
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.
