Re: Comments on Pictorialism

From: Sandy King ^lt;>
Date: 02/08/04-02:54:12 PM Z
Message-id: <a0602040cbc4c4fa523b8@[]>

Judy Seigel wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Sandy King wrote:
>> ...The presentation of the
>> picturesque is the first and foremost
>> characteristic of Pictorialism......
>> 5) the use of alternative printing processes:
>> carbon and carbro, gum bichromate, oil and
>> bromoil, direct carbon, and platinum.
>Sandy leaves room for interpretation here... that #5 could be "an interest
>in " alternative printing processes... But there is still a mythic faux
>pictorialism created, even as I write, by today's 'revival." There was an
>"interest in" these processes, but MOST PHOTOGRAPHS were on factory paper.

Well, behold, I completely agree with Judy on this point, at least as
it applies to the late pictorial period, i.e. the 1920s and 30s. When
I did my research for the book on Spanish Pictorialism I published
some fifteen years ago I actually did a count of all photographs of
the period that were presented as pictorial that could be identified
by process, wherever I found them. Less than 25% of the photographs
that could be so identified were pigment prints and almost all of the
other 75% were made with factory papers, using the so-called
pictorial techniques of soft-focus lenses, texture screens, etc.

On the other hand, if you go back to the period of the origins of the
movement (say 1895-19110), I am fairly certain that one would find a
much higher percentage of pictorial work was done with one of the
pigment processes or in platinum. If one could formulate an adequate
methodology for making the count?

Received on Sun Feb 8 14:55:22 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/02/04-11:35:08 AM Z CST