You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In 1917 the photographer Alfred Stieglitz, who later became O’Keeffe’s husband, included Special No. 15 in the first exhibition of O’Keeffe’s work at his New York Gallery “291.” The following year, he placed the drawing in the background of photographic portraits of her.
This is better than some of the other ones where she is depicted in front of her art where the object is in private hands (Blue I, After a Walk Back of Mabel's), as here we have a much better story of open-ness.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@azaroth42 Shared photography is definitely an interesting angle. Would be great to collect more examples.
The relationship between Stieglitz (and others') photographs and the artworks they depict is another interesting angle. The MoMA data I'm mocking up includes a MoMA Archives' photo by Ansel Adams which depicts Stieglitz with a Georgia O'Keeffe painting (owned by NGA).
@beaudet Do you have a mocked up or live URI for the O'Keeffe painting that you'll be using in the NGA sample data? I will want to be sure the relationship is modeled correctly.
Jonathan Lill of MoMA sent me another example of shared photography across institutions:
MoMA owns an Ansel Adams photo of Stieglitz and an O'Keeffe painting (painting is NGA-owned, see previous comment). Prints of that Stieglitz photo are also owned by the following:
Several of Stieglitz's photos are common to several organizations, as a way to connect across them. For example:
The NGA notes:
Which is:
https://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/91566.html
As is noted in the PMA description:
This is better than some of the other ones where she is depicted in front of her art where the object is in private hands (Blue I, After a Walk Back of Mabel's), as here we have a much better story of open-ness.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: