Follow me on Mastodon:
@adcoleman@hcommons.social
 
 
|
You can see how this matter begins to bear on Team Norsigian’s struggle to authenticate the negatives it claims were made by Ansel Adams. Norsigian and his representatives have made numerous efforts to involve the CCP in the authentication of those negatives. In light of the revelation that the CCP does in fact “routinely” authenticate Adams material via a set of established protocols, the CCP’s responses to Team Norsigian’s requests can only be termed suspicious — inappropriate and, in several cases, inconsistent with its own established policies and procedures. […]
According to a press release dated last Friday, on December 16, 2010, Richard “Rick” Norsigian and PRS Media Partners “publicly announced the filing of a counterclaim against the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust. The primary allegations of the four-count suit involve claims for slander and civil conspiracy.” I’ve indicated previously that I fully expect the Adams Trust to prevail in its trademark-violation suit against Norsigian and PRS Media Partners. Yet it’s no contradiction to say that it wouldn’t surprise me if the letter consortium prevailed in its countersuit. […]
In my 42 years as a critic, historian, and cultural journalist concentrating on photography, I’ve felt it necessary only twice to call publicly for the resignation of major functionaries in this field: John Szarkowski of the Museum of Modern Art (1978) and William Turnage of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust. Not the least of the intriguing connections here is the substantial amount of money that flowed from the latter to the former. […]
William Turnage has disgraced and betrayed the Adams Trust, publicly embarrassing that entity. He has recklessly endangered the reputations of four substantial enterprises: the Adams Trust, the Center for Creative Photography, the University of Arizona, and the Ansel Adams Gallery. Perhaps most significantly of all, under Turnage’s leadership the Trust has not only besmirched itself but damaged the reputation and abused the name of Ansel Adams in the guise of protecting it. Turnage has made himself into a high-profile liability the Adams Trust and its partner institutions can no longer afford. […]
The saga of Rick Norsigian and his yard-sale negatives took some intriguing turns during my 2½-week hiatus October 31-November 18. Most notable, surely, was the initiation of Melinda Pillsbury-Foster’s extensive documentation supporting claims on behalf of her grandfather, the photographer, filmmaker, inventor, lecturer, and author Arthur C. Pillsbury as the maker of the negatives in the Norsigian Collection. From my preliminary perusal of the documentation they’ve assembled, Pillsbury qualifies at least for serious consideration for potential authorship of the Norsigian Collection negatives. […]
|
SPJ Research Award 2014
Thought for the Day Ignorance is a condition; dumbness is a commitment.
Copyright Notice All content of this publication is © copyright 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 by A. D. Coleman unless otherwise noted. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced for commercial purposes without prior written permission. All photos copyright by the individual photographers. "Fair use" allows quotation of excerpts of textual material from this site for educational and other noncommercial purposes.
Published by Flying Dragon LLC.
Neither A. D. Coleman nor Flying Dragon LLC are responsible for the content of external Internet sites to which this blog links.
|
Adams Authentication and the CCP (3)
You can see how this matter begins to bear on Team Norsigian’s struggle to authenticate the negatives it claims were made by Ansel Adams. Norsigian and his representatives have made numerous efforts to involve the CCP in the authentication of those negatives. In light of the revelation that the CCP does in fact “routinely” authenticate Adams material via a set of established protocols, the CCP’s responses to Team Norsigian’s requests can only be termed suspicious — inappropriate and, in several cases, inconsistent with its own established policies and procedures. […]