Talk:John Harding (photographer)

SFBG on 10 x 10 x 10
If the link to the SFBG article on 10 x 10 x 10: An Invitational Exhibition ever disappears, try this link to the same thing (less attractively presented) at archive.org. -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Oakland Museum
According to p. 236 of Sally Eauclaire's American Independents: Eighteen Color Photographers, Harding's work is in the permanent collection of the Oakland Museum. However, none of "John Harding", "John Forrest Harding", "John F. Harding" appears in the museum's "Index of Makers", and there's also no mention of this in the Index to American Photographic Collections (3rd ed). So I suspect that it was a mistake of some kind and have ignored it. (Eauclaire's book also lists other collections; but as all are duplicated in the Index, I haven't bothered with links to her book.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Exhibition catalogues or similar
A number of the group shows came with catalogues or similar. Not having any good reason to think that any is particularly informative, I haven't mentioned them in the article. But here they are, for future library research: --Hoary (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Color in the Street (1983). Accompanied by Color in the Street, ed Colin Westerbeck and Kenda North (CMP Bulletin vol 1, no 5, ).
 * Exposed and Developed (1984). Accompanied by Merry A. Foresta, ed, Exposed and Developed: Photography Sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1988; ).
 * Color Photographs: Recent Acquisitions (1984). Accompanied by a checklist,.
 * Cross Currents/Cross Country. (1988). Accompanied by Cross Currents/Cross Country: Recent Photography from the Bay Area and Massachusetts (Boston: Photographic Resource Center; San Francisco: SF Camerawork, 1988; ISBN 0940145014). "This joint exhibition catalogue supersedes SF Camerawork Quarterly, Volume 15, Number 3 (Fall 1988), and Views: The Journal of Photography in New England, Volume 10, Number 1 (Fall 1988)." Includes an essay, "Tolerance in Legendary Proportions", on the San Francisco photographers by Anne Wilkes Tucker.
 * The Anniversary Show (2009–2011). Accompanied by Janet Bishop, ed, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art: 75 years of looking forward (San Francisco: SFMOMA, 2009; ISBN 9780918471833, ISBN 9780918471840.

Siblings and Wohmann
is mistaken in stating that Siblings has "Text by Gabriele Wohmann". It does not. My "reference" for this: the book itself (I have a copy). There's more evidence that text by Gabriele Wohmann does appear in Geschwister, though I haven't seen this book. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead
The Rambling Man, you pronounced that: OK, I'll discuss it with you. For starters: -- Hoary (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) "one sentence lead inadequate"
 * 2) "This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page."
 * 1) I'd have thought that, other things being equal, brevity was a virtue.
 * 2) Which other key points of the article's contents need a more adequate summary?
 * Just about anything from the rest of the article like highlights of his career, his awards, his exhibitions, etc. The lead does not summarise the salient points of the article, it simply states his profession, and not much else. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know of the highlights: it seems more of a gradual accumulation of photographs and a gradual increase in awareness (at least among museum curators) of this work and its value. There hasn't been a major exhibition (in my Wikipedia-valueless opinion, he's due for one), and the books have brought little critical attention. (For what blogs are worth, the books have brought little attention even there.) Examination of earlier versions of his website (via Wayback) shows that he long worked on commissions, both editorial and advertising. I'd like to write more about this; but if I did, the result could be charged with both use of primary/non-disinterested/blog sources and original synthesis. If he does get a retrospective exhibition, then its catalogue may write up the work he did that paid the rent and put food on the table; till then, I fear that the article, however scrupulous, can give only a partial picture. Well, Gilliam has added a second sentence to the lead; there's no factual mistake in this addition (and of course it's well intentioned), so I shan't fight it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Did he work on some grand project with his Guggenheim Fellowship? -Lopifalko (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This tells us that it was $7500 for photography; that's all I know. -- Hoary (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

"the color street photography that he (has?) pursued for four decades"
In this edit, BeforeAdapter removed the "has" from.

We know that he started in 1976. In an interview published in January 2019 he talks of photographing as a current activity, in the context of talk about color photography in the street. We lack clear evidence for any claim that it continues, but I think it's fairly safe to assume that it does, given that we have no suggestion to the contrary.

The past simple tense is used in subtly different ranges of context in different varieties of English; but to me, "the color street photography that he pursued for four decades" strongly suggests that the pursuit has ended. Therefore I'd like to reinstate "has". -- Hoary (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No response, so I have reinserted "has". -- Hoary (talk) 23:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)