Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/02/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Granted on the issues of the visual essay. It's an area that vexed him to no end. However, on the printing issue, he wasn't especially brilliant,or anything approaching the level of a genius, as the current wave of celebratory and fawning 'scholarship' likes to intimate. In the mid 1970's, I interviewed one of his old editor at LIFE. I wish I had the presence of mind to have saved the notes. His name currently escapes me. However, I will be in Santa Monica this afternoon. I'll try to swing by the house, where the interview took place. Maybe the family still owns it, or the current tenant might know who lived had lived there. Anyway, he said he kept an eye on Smith while he stepped off the LIFE reservation. He made sure he was hired back in 1944. A number of comments stand out from that nearly 3 hour conversation. According to the editor, the key reason over the earlier disagreement with LIFE, came up over Smith's refusal to use a larger format than the 35mm. Another interesting point was his dismissal of Smith's printing capabilities. He recounted, how one day Smith went to the LIFE lab to have a print done. He had spent days on it, with little success. He showed the head printer what he done so far, and asked if he could do something with it. The printer came back 15 minutes later, and asked Smith if that''s what he had in mind, as he showed him the print. Smith just looked at the print, nodded, and walked away. Apparently not very happy at not being to able to have solved the negative's issues with that kind of ease, according to the editor. Lastly, he mentioned that it was in Smith's contract that he wasn't allowed to use strobes. However, he did use a small strobe in the shot of Schweitzer at the his desk with the oil lamp. Smith bounced the light off the floor, to the left of Schweitzer, to separate him from the dark background. Apparently all the contracts were tailored to each individual photographer. What applied to Smith might not necessarily apply to Capa, etc. That's all I can remember so far. During the 70's Smith wasn't especially known for his printing. It was just general knowledge. In those years I made a point of trying to meet as many of the photographers whose work I admired. But, by then Smith was an isolated tragic figure, who was no longer accessible. The editor was the closest I could come. S.d. On Feb 21, 2010, at 7:38 AM, John Edwin Mason wrote: > Vince, ditto to everything you said, especially this about the Pittsburgh > project: > >> He went and spent most of two years in Pittsburgh taking pictures that, >> given the original low-paying assignment, probably required less than a >> week's work. They are some of the greatest American photographs of the >> post-war years, absolutely astonishing. They were finally gathered >> together in significant number only a few years ago and the book he'd >> long dreamed of came into being. It's called "Dream Street." Definitely >> worth owning. > > "Absolutely astonishing" is right. > > The story of the project, which is well told in the introduction to "Dream > Street," is equally astonishing. As you know, he was driven, obsessed, > compulsive, and deeply addicted to meth and booze. He suffered > tremendously, and so did many of those closest to him. The book is still > in print, btw. > > He was printing and editing the Pittsburgh project at the same time that > he was living in the NYC loft and creating the photos and sound recordings > that make up the Jazz Loft Project. The musicians who knew him remember > him as a very cool cat--generous, easy to be around, and always, always, > always working. > > --John > > ****************************** > John Edwin Mason, Photography: > http://www.JohnEdwinMason.com > Charlottesville and Cape Town > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information