PAGE
2 by Thomas Yanul
CONSTRUCTION PHOTOGRAPHY
copyright 2001
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.
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
Posing
for official photographer's camera.
Undated.
6x8" Platinum print
Courtesy Higinbotham Family
Models,
workmen, sculptor ?
Col.Expo. - Undated
6x8" platinum print.
Courtesy Higinbotham Family
Col.Expo. - Undated
6x8" platinum print.
Courtesy Higinbotham Family
"360. For Machinery Bldg.- July 5, 1892"
Probably
sculptor with full-size clay mockup. 6x8" platinum -
Courtesy Higinbotham Family
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.