Contributed by (Reporter)
Dear Sir/Madam:
I'm the author (or blogger I suppose) of the articles that have caused Keya Morgan to speak out to various news organizations in defense of his recent purchase.
Here are all the articles I've written on the subject:
June 12 Rare Slave Photo Not So Rare? Same Photo Sells on eBay
June 13 Rare and Haunting Slave Photo: The Boy is Not Named John
June 14 Child Slave Photo Taken in 1870 Georgia?
June 15 Examining the Rare Child Slave Photo
(These articles have been removed because of threats of lawsuits by Mr. Morgan...Photogirl)
(These articles have been removed because of threats of lawsuits by Mr. Morgan...Photogirl)
As is obvious, I have an intense interest in this story.
Although I originally doubted that the mounting of the carte-de-visite (CDV) photo
was genuine for the studio of Mathew (or Matthew, although the correct
spelling is Mathew) Brady circa the Civil War, I have since determined
the the mounting is indeed correct for a Brady produced photo circa 1862-63, and my previous articles have been edited accordingly.
By the mounting, I mean the card upon which the photograph is glued.
You may find my most recent article rather in support of Mr. Morgan. For now.
Mounting aside, there are still doubts about the photographer or studio that produced the photo
itself. J.N. Wilson was known for these sorts of photos in
the post-war South. Wilson's studio photographed and published many
series with similar scenes. Brady and his studio were not known for
such subjects.
Anyone with access to the internet can see examples of Wilson's work in the NYPL Digital Gallery collection. Anyone can see samples of Brady's work at the same site.
The photo
was absolutely, without a doubt, originally a stereo view, which is two
slightly different photos taken at the same time and mounted on a
stereo view card. You would be hard-pressed to find comparative subject
example in Brady's portfolio circa 1862-1863. (If anyone reading this
can give me examples, they are welcome). You will find dozens in
Wilson's circa 1868 onwards. I freely conceded that if this photo is by Brady, it is quite rare indeed.
"The size of a carte de visite is 2⅛ × 3½ inches mounted on a card sized 2½ × 4 inches"
"The traditional stereo view card format
is 3.5 x 7 inches (89 x 178 mm) with an image area that is usually
about 3.5 x 6 inches 89 x 152 mm) or slightly narrower. However, images
may be taller than 3.5 inches -- for example, 5 inches high x 6 inches
wide."
It's obvious the Morgan/Brady photo is a cropped stereo view mounted as a single image on a CDV card format. This cannot be disputed.
Additionally, the mainstream news reporting on the story missed another essential point. There is absolutely no logic in assuming the John of the sales document is one of the boys in the photo. The document purchased by Morgan does not say the age of John. However, the Petition in the Digital Library on American Slavery does.
If the John of the Petition (and Morgan's Document) was 27 or 28 in 1854, there is no way one of the children in the picture is the John of the Petition.
There is no other record of a petition to sell a slave named John by the Potters of Brunswick County, NC in 1854.
All the experts in the world can confirm the mounting seems to be 1862-63 Brady.
None have confirmed that the subject has any relevance to any
other Brady studio photos of that era. None have mentioned the dozens
of similar Wilson stereo views which are available in a public domain. None have addressed the association of the boys in the photo to the document. None have addressed the eBay sale that included not only the stereo view of the boys, but other images never seen before. None have expressed even the mildest surprise that the eBay sale was on June 8, and the story about the Morgan photo broke on June 10.
I make no inferences about the mysterious coincidence of those
dates. But, it piqued my interest enough to dig further and further.
I've personally communicated with the eBay seller. For Mr. Morgan to call this a case of sour grapes
is dismissive and derogatory towards the seller at best. The eBay
seller has nothing to do with my interest in researching the photo.
According to an interview conducted by Doug Stanglin of USA Today
OnDeadline: "Mr. Morgan attributes some of questions raised about his
purchase to "buyer's remorse" from the eBay seller who sold his photos
for $163. Morgan says that the seller probably could have gotten around
$1,000 for the photos, although not much more."
The eBay seller, who wishes to remain anonymous,
responded: "I always find it disheartening when an auction buyer, who
may have grossly overpaid, resorts to defaming the very credible
evidence that proves [an attribution or provenance.] Very sad indeed.
Oh, by the way, I have absolutely no remorse for the results of my
auctions. I paid $5.00 for the stereo view and a paper bag of cards.
My return was over $1,000. I call that a pretty fair profit margin,
wouldn't you?"
To quote Mr. Morgan in an article published by the Charlotte Observer:
"(The blogger) quotes an anonymous lady off eBay who's never studied
these photographs, who's never even heard of the terminology, or knows
anything about authenticity, said Morgan, who said he has collected or
handled thousands of Brady photos. His photo, he said, was taken around 1862 or 1863. Its mount and albumen paper were typical of the materials Brady used in that period."
1). How does Mr. Morgan know the sex of any sources I may have
used? Who is he referring to? I did not ask any of my sources what sex
they were.
2). Indeed, no one but Morgan seems to have personally studied the photo.
3). The mount may be typical for Brady, but albumen paper was commonly used for just about all collodion photos of the era.
I am not a critic, as a few have labelled me. None of the interested parties are "moronic"
as Mr. Morgan stated. I'm an interested observer and sometimes
blogger/reporter. OK. Call me a blogger, but don't call me a critic.
The coincidence of the eBay sale and the AP story piqued my
interest enough to raise a flag. It is not my intent to attack or
be "a critic" of Mr. Morgan.
What hit me about this photo is that it depicts children. Nameless, as has been proven, children. Not celebrities like Marilyn Monroe,
but poor and bedraggled kids sitting on a barrel next to a clump of
sugar-cane in the dreary world of the late (?) 19th century American
South.
You might as well all click this link too. It proves a point.
I'm shocked more people did not question this story in it's entirety, and I applaud those who have. I do not doubt the photo is a "real" photo. I did not once call it a fake, as Mr. Morgan and Mr. Sapp of the Smithsonian implied.
I'm merely trying to place it at a certain point in history so we can
all know for sure whether these boys were slaves, or not, at the time
the photo was taken.
Others have the same concern. There is an entire eBay Forum devoted to the topic. A Civil War forum topic is devoted to discussing every detail of the photo including the plants.
Many fail to see how "Haunting Photo of Emancipated Children Found" would have been a less compelling headline than the original AP headline. Many question how the document was so tenuously and off-handedly associated with a boy in the photo,
without proper research. Many question why the experts have dismissed
the J.N. Wilson (or another photographers) photos as being the
originals. Many question why Mr. Morgan is happy to comment about the
"authentic Brady circa 1862-63 mounting" of the photo, but none of the other elements in question.
Do we want to know the truth about these boys? Or will they be
relegated to "one helluva picker find" from the estate sale of a
childless, elderly, African-American woman in Charlotte, North
Carolina? Will one of the boys in the photo
be forever remembered by the wrong name? Will our collective
consciousness forever envision their faces as slaves, when they could
have been free at the time?
According to various collectors, researchers, and sellers of
photographic memorabilia I’ve spoken to, many of whom have been in the
business longer than Keya Morgan has been alive, my quest to answer these questions is likely fruitless.
But I can still try. I would just like the truth.
I believe the children in the photo deserve that.
Thank you,
Kate Marcus
No comments:
Post a Comment