|
|
|
||||||||
|
COLUMBIAN EXPOSITION
CONSTRUCTION PHOTOGRAPHY
PAGE 2 by Thomas Yanul
copyright 2001
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Notes on Exposition & Fair Photography
Its the feeling of the author that this type of
photography has its roots dating back to one
photographer, Philip Henry Delamotte (1820-1889).
As an early Calotype photographer, Delamotte's
artistic bent was utilized to portray architecture's
engineering aspects with the Crystal Palace
removal from London and re-construction at
Sydenham in 1854. Hired to photograph the
re-construction, Delamotte produced magnificent
photographs that represented the industrial
revolution's mechanics as art.
It was a trend that was evident in the 1889
Paris exposition as photographed by Albert
Chevojon, who became a force in the photographic
firm of Delmaet-Durandelle in 1886, plying his craft
during the construction of the Tour Eiffel and
many other magnificent engineering structures that
debuted at this fair. Chevojon brought the art of
photographing engineering as design to a new high
using large format cameras and modern papers.
Something that C.D. Arnold again advanced,
primarily because of modern materials such as
platiumum prints which brought this type of
architectural/engineering photography to a zenith.
Fairs would never again see such monumental
structures built and so this type of exposition
photography came to an end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
With the actual start of work on the grounds in February of 1891, the
realization of how little time there is to get this project done is starting to
sink in...26 months to the opening of the largest World's Fair ever held.
Roughly 760 days to turn 500 acres of swamp and scrubland into a
magnificent obsession. Nothing in history could have prepared people
for what was to come, although they tried as best they could. As early
as 1889, the year talk became action, representatives were sent to Paris
to learn as much as possible about how a World's Fair is organized, built
and operated. Plus it was only 16 years since the Centennial Fair and many
in Chicago were familiar with its physical aspects if not its operational
details. The decision to choose large,well known architectural firms to
design the major buildings probably saved a year's time over having a
competition across the country. With just over two years time, decisions
were made from a practical standpoint. Having to go through the Federal
Congress for permission, and its subsequent rules, regulations and red
tape, was an anchor dragging bottom for the Chicago Corporation's
ability to function with all due speed. But that was the situation, and they
made the best they could do with what they had and what was promised.
There was never enough money, too little time, and demands from all
quarters to fill space - of which there was never enough to go around.
Hard choices had to be made daily, feelings were bruised, but in the end
the good outweighed the bad. Chicago and the world celebrated like it had
never before.
And it is still celebrated to this day by scholar and collector,
professional historian and amateur buff. Aside from the social aspects
of the fair, there are two things that propell this memory; the physical
remnants in the form of souvineers,coins, brochures, and the like.
And of course the items that create a stirring visual excitement,
the photographs.
There is something peculiar about the photographic image that moves people
differently than painting, engraving, or other mechanical manifestation as
a representation of something or someone. It was evident in Daguerres' time
and remains so today. We have all seen lovely engravings, water colors and
depictions of the Columbian Exposition, many are elegant and delightful.
But in the end, to know in my minds-eye what the fair looked like, I want to
see those grand, large platinum prints by C.D. Arnold. To be in a room full
of these gorgious prints is not exactly the same, but the closest thing to
having been there. It is the photographs that live. They give us an inkling
of what it must have felt like to actually stand in the presence of this grand
illusion as the apptly named Chicago Historical Society's 1993 centennial
celebration book on the fair so aptly put it. And of course so many publications
were produced then, and continue being made now, that utilize literally
thousands of Exposition photos. Many of which were not Arnolds, but
photographers hired by individual consessions, exhibitors, governments,
and just plain folks who"kodacked" at the fair. There seems to be an
endless supply of images, many newly discovered in family albums and
attic archives. All provide sustenance for a seemingly insatiable appetite.
But the motherlode of views remains the big platinums of Arnold.
At the end of the fair Daniel Burnham remarked thatArnold (as construction photographer and Official Photography bureau) created 15,000 negatives.
If you do the arithmatic, taking three full years as a rough divider (1891-92-93)
thats 13.69 photos per day for three years ! And of course if you take out
rainy days, overcast days, days in the first years when there was little to
photograph, you come to see the enormity of this task. Plus, these are
view camera images, not 35mm Nikons with a 100 image roll inside.
Processing is in poorly heated or non-airconditioned facilities (and of course
Arnold had no "facilities" as such until his building was completed in October
of 1892, nearly two years after he started making photographs).
Arnold also apparently comes on board as a lone photographer for some time,
adding one assistant at some point. And then there still are only two people
working taking photos up to at least October 1892. Then you must add
to the mix of responsibilities his trips to New York and other cities to
photographs artisans at work in their studios (not all work was done on
the fairgrounds since there literally was no place to work from) and Arnold was
called upon frequently to travel to provide visual updates on the progress of
these artists and also to provide materials for the publicity and promotion
department, architects and planners, etc. He also made glass lantern
slides for various promotional activities in many States and foreign countries.
I can't list all the things that as a photographer he was responsible for.
But to go on, there was records and bookkeeping, ordering his own supplies,
shipping and labelling, processing and printing, and of course the everpresent meetings and discussions. Arnold was also responsible once the fair started to become organized - before the opening - for making contracts with others
(Gibson for portraits and pass photos, and Kilburn for stereo rights), getting his building designed and built, moving in, setting up, and the list is endless.
This matter, if one actually sits and thinks about it, is absolutely overwhelming.
How did he get it all done and still have time to make thousands of photographs ?
And if you do in fact take all this into consideration, how is it possible that
some professional historian can make a comment about "why did Arnold
make this photograph from this position ? What was he trying to tell us
about the inclusion of power of the people who organized and built this
fair" ? Or something to that effect. Social historians get a bit carried
away with their own reflections....
I would venture that every building on those grounds must have been
photographed from every angle available. And given that you only have
a short time to shoot some facades (north facing time very limited for sun
in this meridian), given both the time of day and the time of the year.
(aside from inclement weather!) And of course there are only a given number
of places to shoot from. The ground, balconies of other buildings, rooftops
and so on. No hydraulic lifts or helicopters. You shoot a building from a
certain vantage point because thats whats available.
Arnold was hired to make a record, not create an artisitic movement.
He was obviously trained or taught himself, the standard classically
accepted tenents of style, of massing, of line, of composition. And that
obviously is what he attempted to fullfill as a photographer. My personal
impression is that he suceeded in accomplishing his task in an artfull
yet practical manner.
In the next two fairs that Arnold participated in as photographer, the
Cotton States of 1895 and the Pan-American of 1901, neither was
recorded as grandly (with big platinums) as was the case at the
Columbian. I don't think it going out on a limb too far to say it was
simply a matter of time and expense. Big cameras, big glass negatives
and big platinum printing was both labor intensive and expensive.
The Cotton States Fair was obviously not of the economic stature to
warrant such matters, and economics and age might have played
a role in his not doing it to any great extent at the Pan-American.
(but there does seems to be many 8x10" platinums of the Pan-
American, so I guess Arnold was making up for the poor quality of
many albumins from the Col. Expo., which is a production problem
more than anything else - if the gold-toning is good the albumins are
fine, but who could watch 100 or so employees everyday in their job?)
Arnold was 57 years old when the Pan-am came along and, I know from
whence I speak, carrying that kind of equipment around is not a
picnic - at any age ! Although I don't know of specifics on big platinums
regards the Pan-Am, most people I talk to have seen none, and some
say a few. I have a 16x20 platinum of the Electric Tower, and that is
the only one I have seen. In other words, they exist in very small
numbers. Arnold no longer had to "prove" himself through this
mechanism...he had already done it at the Columbian, and I think
he felt that would stand by itself as a measure of his ability and
professionalism. Some things are just too difficult to repeat often.
William Rau of Philadelphia comes to mind. Rau's giant swing-lens
panoramic camera created spectacular images but after a few years
of struggling with that behometh he set it aside pretty much in favor
of his hand-held stereo. Maybe economics was a prime factor,
but I can't help think that plain old back-breaking hard work played a
role in his decisions.
A point to make here also is that all of Arnold's camera equipment
bought for work during the Exposition was property of the Columbian
Exposition Company and was disposed of at the close of the fair
to help pay back expenses due them. It was part of the contract.
So in order for Arnold to have done large work, new camera equipment
would have had to be purchased, unless he already owned such
pieces, which doesn't seem to be the fact from his past work.
He may have borrowed a camera, which I believe he did at the
Columbian (using a Scovil swing lens panoramic camera) but
to purchase something for a very limited time wouldn't have been
economically feasable at these later fairs.
I suppose this page sounds more like an introduction rather than
'a continuation of the previous page on construction photography,
but my feelings about how complicated this job was has to be inserted
here for readers to understand my point of view. This was not just
a matter of going out and taking some photos, it was a major
business undertaking of hugh proportions. I believe it is from this
point of view that Arnold's work must be understood, and all the more
valued for what he accomplished.
Thanks
For Contact: tom@tomyanul.com
.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Unidentified models, workers,
and possible sculptor, Col.Expo.
Posing for official photographer's camera.
Undated.
6x8" Platinum print
Courtesy Higinbotham Family
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Hamming it up as "Pan" - for the photographer.
Models, workmen, sculptor ?
Col.Expo. - Undated
6x8" platinum print.
Courtesy Higinbotham Family
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Marked in negative
"360. For Machinery Bldg.- July 5, 1892"
Probably sculptor with full-size clay mockup.
6x8" platinum -
Courtesy Higinbotham Family
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
AUTHORS NOTES ON HIRING HELP
As the owner of probably the largest
archive of the Official Portrait photographer's
paperwork (which came from the Gibson
family) I have a fair idea of what hiring help
for the studio was like. In almost daily letters
to his wife in Ann Arbor, Michigan, J.J.Gibson
often spoke of the difficulty in getting "operators",
(cameramen) to come to work at the fair. He
literally was writing people all over the country
trying to hire them, but most turned him down
since the fair was only a six month affair and
their own businesses would suffer greatly in
their absence. Retouchers were also in great
demand and the work often had to be farmed
out to other studios in Chicago and elsewhere.
Gibson would often send crates of negs to be
worked on at his Ann Arbor studio.
Arnold's operation was certainly as large or larger
than Gibson's so I assume he had difficulty also.
NOTE: the spaces between the photos and
the caption are a problem of "interference"
so says AOL technicians-and no one seems
to know how to fix it. Nuff said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| page created with Easy Designer |