Hugh Laurie as Dr. Gregory House.
Took some much-needed time off from tracking the doings of Rick Norsigian et al to attend to other matters and clear my brain.
This story begins to feel like a rabbit hole, a sinkhole, a black hole — or some befuddling combination of those phenomena. Like the irascible diagnostician Dr. Gregory House of the eponymous TV series, I want to lurch to my chalkboard so as to scribble mad notes with interconnecting arrows all over it. Or lay about me with my cane. Or take some serious painkillers. Preferably all three. At once. As Bob Dylan sings, “The people just get uglier, and I have no sense of time.”
I share this sensation with other members of the press covering it, all of us beginning to suffer from a form of battle fatigue. It doesn’t help any of us newshounds that we must also deal with the backstage antics of some of the actual and incipient protagonists, not all of them on their best behavior. Loose cannons scattered all around this combat zone, and we have to stay on constant guard to dodge the grapeshot and keep our feet from under the wheels. We work hard, I must say, to look past that to see if we can winkle out the nuggets of useful fact, and even the occasional verity, while discounting the personalities of the bearers thereof.
Reyhan Harmanci of the Bay Citizen
So I want to compliment and thank my colleagues Reyhan Harmanci, Culture Editor/Writer at the Bay Citizen and stringer for the New York Times, with whom I’ve shared several long conversations, and Mike Boehm of the Los Angeles Times, with whom I’ve not yet spoken, on their work on this story so far. They’ve done some serious probing, and have a good grasp on the issues involved and their ramifications. Because they’re located on the left coast, they’re closer to most of the action than I am from my seat back east. And because as staffers they actually get paid for their reportage, unlike my uncompensated freelance self, they can engage in some real investigative legwork.
LA Times Culture Monster logo
Boehm has a relatively new long piece up, “Ansel Adams, Earl Brooks share top billing in show on Yosemite photography since the 1860s,” datelined November 2. He uses “An Illustrated View of Yosemite,” the then just-opened group show at the Scott Nichols Gallery in San Francisco, as a jumping-off point. Since the show juxtaposes authenticated prints by Adams with the four known prints attributed tentatively by Nichols to Earl Brooks (among other works), Boehm uses the occasion to consider new evidence coming to light about Earl Brooks, an alternative candidate for production of the negatives attributed by Team Norsigian to Ansel Adams. (Note: Boehm’s pieces usually appear under the LA Times‘s “Culture Monster” header. I can’t vouch for this logo as an accurate portrayal of Boehm.)
A. C. Pillsbury, n.d.
Harmanci’s most recent contributions include “Ansel Adams or Not? More Twists” in the New York Times, November 9, 2010, and “The Ansel Adams Debate: See For Yourself — Compare large-scale images by Uncle Earl and his challengers,” with a byline shared by Harmanci and Tasneem Raja, in the Bay Citizen, also datelined November 9, 2010. The first of these debuts press coverage of the possibility that “Arthur C. Pillsbury, a well-known photographer of the period, should be added to the list of possible creators of the images of Yosemite park and the Northern California coast that Mr. Norsigian bought a decade ago.” (It also contains some startling revelations of serious misconduct on the part of William “Wild Bill” Turnage, managing trustee of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust, about which I’ll have much more to say in a future post.) The second article compares images from the so-called Norsigian Collection with similar and, in at least one case, identical images by Pillsbury, Earl Brooks, and yet a fourth contender, Harry Pidgeon.
So I congratulate Boehm and Harmanci — Tasneem Raja too — for contributing energetically to the classic journalistic process of sifting through the conflicting accounts and evidence in search of something approximating the truth of the matter. Not an easy job for any of us, given the flood of malarkey from diverse sources in which we wade.
•
(L-R) Arnold Peter, Barbara M. Rubin, Jody Simon, Esqs.
For the record, I received the following on Monday, November 1, from Arnold Peter, legal counsel to Team Norsigian:
Dear Mr. Coleman:
In your blog posting of last week, you made direct reference to my law partners in connection with the Norsigian negatives. I would like to explain that PRS Media Partners, LLC (“Media Partners”) is an entity separate and distinct from our law firm, Peter Rubin & Simon, LLP. I am the sole owner of Media Partners and my partners in the law firm have no ownership or involvement in PRS Media Partners, LLC. Further, they have are involved [sic] in the Norsigian matter. I would appreciate it if you could keep this distinction in mind in the future. Thank you.
I replied as follows:
From the PRS Media Partners, LLC website, 10/13/2010.
Dear Mr. Peter:
I’ve received your note re the distinction between Peter Rubin & Simon, LLP and PRS Media Partners, LLC.
As of two weeks ago, the website for this firm stated that “PRS Media Partners, LLC is a strategic consultancy that was launched by the founding partners of Peter, Rubin & Simon, LLP to provide professional services that go beyond those provided by traditional entertainment lawyers.” So I hope you can understand how this statement — in combination with the name PRS Media Partners itself, which certainly suggest a partnership among the principals — led me to the assumption that it actually meant what it said.
I will make corrections to existing posts, and keep this distinction in mind henceforth.
Peter Rubin & Simon LLP logo
Just so we’re clear, then: Barbara M. Rubin and Jody Simon, who are “founding partners” in Peter, Rubin & Simon LLP, and jointly “launched” PRS Media Partners, LLC, are not partners in the latter firm, regardless of the fact that this firm has the word “partners” in its name. Furthermore, Rubin and Simon “have no ownership or involvement in PRS Media Partners, LLC,” even though they helped “launch” it (in a totally non-proprietary and uninvolved way, of course). Finally, Rubin and Simon “have are involved in the Norsigian matter.” We’re all going to keep these distinctions in mind in the future, I’m quite sure.
PRS Media Partners logo
As I wrote in a correction/retraction to my October 28 post, “Taking him at his word, I therefore retract the above statement in which I assumed their involvement in all matters relating to the firm in which they’re partners, as well as their involvement in the separate and autonomous firm they helped to ‘launch,’ PRS Media Partners LLC. I apologize to Ms. Rubin and Mr. Simon for this error. Clearly the stilted language, flawed reasoning, and other deficiencies of Norsigian-related material prepared under the auspices of either entity are attributable exclusively to Mr. Peter.”
At the same time, I feel compelled to add that professionals in every field get judged by the company they keep and the formal affiliations they make. Consequently, Arnold Peter’s shenanigans inevitably reflect on Barbara M. Rubin and Jody Simon as colleagues, and on the two firms in whose activities all three of these attorneys participate — with an effect increasingly like mackerel by moonlight.
•
For an index of links to all previous posts related to this story, click here.
Welcome back Mr. Coleman! I’m not sure this reader could have waited much longer for another installment of this great matinee serial: Perils of Peter! :>)
Interesting that Mr. Peter responds robustly to minutiae of perceived besmirchments or misrepresentation of his relation to partners but, missing the copse for the conifers, continues to offer no relevant substantive meaty morsels for us to munch on. Lacking any real forensic proof whatsoever from the Norsigian boys, I suppose we need to continue with further family interviews and the study of Brooks’ scrapbook.
I applaud you and your fellow investigators for the superb work you’ve done so far and hope to see that continued. Interesting that another EXACT print (not just similar) of a Norsigian negative has surfaced. This should move the Norsigian claims from the “not yet forensically proven” to the “more and more implausible“ category. Any news on who the news person with exclusive rights to break the Brooks story is and when they might do so? Brooke?
Dear A. D.,
While you may not be compensated in the manner of Reyhan Harmanci and Mike Boehm, I believe that you have been inspired to inject exquisite prose and dare I say poetry into your telling of the tale.
I’m thinking screenplay here.
Regards,
John
Dear John:
Compensation for the work I do at this blog depends entirely on my readers. There’s a PayPal donation button near the top of the right-hand column on every page. You can’t miss it.
It seems like the Norsigian group’s fabulously flawed forensically feeble fantasies are “Petering” out…
Well this story has certainly petered out.
Hey, folks ― I appreciate the pun, but let’s not beat it to death. Jocularity is fine with me, but please ensure that your comments add to the discussion.
Gentlemen,
The “exclusive” was given to Reyhan Harmanci. By now you all must have read her story. She was given copies of all the materials to evaluate. While she did in fact reveal some of the new facts, I feel she did more to further cloud the possibility that Earl Brooks took the glass negatives. With all respect to Harry Pidgeon, with whom Earl was a friend, and Mr Pillsbury, who both took similar photographs, none are exact matches. Our family is now in possession of exact matches from two different sources, one of which is a direct inheritance, and hopefully more to be discovered.
The 600 plus page typewritten memoir details Earl’s growing up in Visalia Ca. during the early 1900’s. He tells of his adventures on many wilderness trips and speaks of using glass negatives on some of these trips. While it is very informative about his continuing career as a photographer, it is not specifically technical.
The photo albums are more revealing. In them we do have another 6×8 print which is an exact match to one of the unreleased glass negatives in the Norsigian collection. There are numerous other photos in the albums which, while not “exact matches” are of the same subjects as some the glass negatives, possibly shot from the same vantage point with a different camera or developed as smaller prints.
There are diaries in Earl’s handwriting which, although at first I didn’t realize it, bear a remarkable similarity to the envelopes that the glass negatives were found in.
Since these news stories have come out, I am now free to reveal many of the details and images, and am considering what the best possible avenue for that will be. Hopefully, very soon, the images and content of these documents will be available for the experts and the public to view.
I remain, now more than ever, convinced that our grandfather “Pappy” did indeed take these photographs.
Best, Brooke
Thanks for the information, Brooke. I would love to be able to read the entire memoir! You know, if it wasn’t for Norsigian, we wouldn’t have known of your grandfather’s fine achievement and of the richness of California photography during that time period! Looking forward to more!
A.D. you should really read through what you post in your commentaries because they are full of snide remarks and unnecessary sarcasm that are completely unprofessional. You might want to look at yourself before you admonish others.
Believe it or not, I read ― and re-read, and re-read yet again ― every post I publish here. Usually, unlike this blog’s commenters, I let those essays sit for days of consideration before I put them up. Sarcasm, snideness, even indignation and outrage, are hardly “completely unprofessional” in a critic and cultural journalist, as any regular reader of any writer who serves that role in relation to any field (art, literature, politics) surely knows.
The point wasn’t that I objected to your sarcasm, or Kuzniak’s. The point was that repeated japes about “petering out,” unattached to any substantive commentary, get old very fast. Sarcasm and snideness are welcome here. Lack of substance isn’t. I encourage commenters to add something of value to the discussion, and I don’t discourage flavoring that with attitude (even in the form of bad puns).
Mr. Layton,
This story has only just begun!
If you want to read some snide remarks and unnecessary lack of professionalism I suggest that you start with the so called Research Report on Earl Brooks which is posted on the Norsigian web site! How dare they purport to “uncover revealing” facts about Earl and publish them in such a shabby and derogatory manner. Their so-called “exhaustive” research is limited in it’s scope and a complete offense to dignity of Earl’s memory. There was no reason whatsoever for them to level such an attack on him and to suggest that what is being brought forward are fabrications from members of his family.
Furthermore it seems to me that Mr. Coleman has been one of the few people, who are weighing in on this debate, to present an relatively unbiased opinion!
At any rate I don’t feel that this blog should be a forum for petty squabbling and name calling. All the photographers that are at the heart of this debate deserve better.
Sincerely, B.D.
PS: I happen to like the little puns that are being put forth by some of the commentators here.
LOL!