Rebinding of the Camera Work Collection

Heather & Darryl McPherson

ABSTRACT Periodicals of Camera Work were The NGA wished to exhibit some of the published in the USA between 1903 and collection but very poor leaf flow resulting 1917, generally in quarterly editions with from the rebinding made this extremely occasional special editions in some years. difficult. A decision was made to rebind Each edition comprised articles the collection to allow safe exhibition. In concerning the photographic arts and doing so, it was decided to rebind them as featured photography of several artists. individual editions as they had been Each edition had been bound by link originally. A methodology was developed stitching of sections and attachment of a that combined good leaf flow with bindings limp paper wraparound cover. as sympathetically aligned with those of the originals. The National Gallery of Australia (NGA) had a complete set of this valuable INTRODUCTION publication. However, the editions had January 2003 marked the centenary of the been pulled down from their original launch of the journal, Camera Work. bindings and rebound into annual Conceived by the legendary American collections. In rebinding, all edges photographer, Alfred Stieglitz, and (including covers), and in most cases the designed by the equally famous Edward spine folds, had been guillotined and the Steichen, Camera Work aimed to promote pages restitched by overcast stitching on and support the work of the newly formed to sawn in cords and completed as case American Photo-Secession movement of bindings. art photographers. Camera Work, a

Rebinding of the Camera Work Collection 87 quarterly publication, was initially a vehicle as the former Curator of the Royal for advancing the cause of Pictorialism Photographic Society in England, Pam and those pictorialist photographers Roberts observed, 'Camera Work served selected by Stieglitz. By 1910, Stieglitz as an autobiography of the creative life of had largely lost interest in photography one man, its creator, editor, financier and and the focus of Camera Work shifted to inspiration, Alfred Stieglitz. other art forms, especially French Impressionist art. The last issues, which Recognising the seminal role of the journal appeared in 1917, saw a return to and its influence on both 20th century photography but now supporting a new photography and art, the National Gallery form of hard-edged modernism featuring of Australia acquired a complete set in the work of Paul Strand. 1976 from Ex Libris, a New York gallery devoted to the fine art of printing design, Across its 50 issues, Camera Work would run by the prominent author/designer become the most important American art partners, Arthur A. Cohen and Elaine journal of the first half of the 20th century. Lustig Cohen, both of whom were involved in book arts. It is the only set known in From a technical viewpoint, Camera Work Australasia. Roger Piatt-Hull (1970) exhibits a number of interesting features. identified a reference to one Australian Unlike many earlier photographic journals, subscriber to Camera Work, a Mr Ernest it was the first photographic journal to L. Brown of Melbourne. Sydney Pictorial emphasise visual and intellectual content photographer, Harold Cazneaux owned a rather than just providing technical advice. single copy from 1909 on the back cover The great proportion of illustrations was of which he apparently sketched a draft hand-pulled, photogravures of the very logo design for The Sydney Camera Circle highest quality, often made by the which formed in 1916, and was thus most photographers themselves. These likely modelled, at least in part, on the photogravures, almost entirely printed on canons established by Alfred Stieglitz. Japanese tissue to preserve the maximum tonal quality, are among the finest In the early 1990s, the NGA, wishing to examples of this art form. exhibit a number of the photogravures from its holdings, recognized that the Stieglitz, himself one of the foremost collection as it constituted on purchase did exponents of photogravure in America, not allow sufficient leaf flow to allow this. considered it to be the perfect vehicle for Consequently, it was determined that work disseminating photography to a wider should be carried out to ensure that they audience. With few exceptions, all the could be safely and adequately exhibited gravures were made by just three firms in and accessed. Over ensuing years, this America, England and Germany. The work was extended to encompass the paper stock for the text pages for Camera entire collection. This paper describes the Work, while not of exceptional quality, was conservation work undertaken over that maintained across all fifty issues. This period. same stock was also used by Stieglitz for other exhibition catalogues of the work of THE ORIGINAL CAMERA WORK the Photo-Secessionists. PUBLICATIONS Camera Work was originally published as Throughout its life Camera Work individual editions. The text paper was of functioned on many levels. It began as a laid machine made western paper. In the vehicle for the very best Pictorialist the earlier editions, the photogravures work. It provided aesthetic commentary were printed on Japanese handmade from the foremost critics of the day in the tissue, tipped onto text paper at the spine. fields of photography, painting, sculpture For later editions, coloured photographic and literature while serving as a catalogue prints were introduced. These were and review of exhibitions at Stieglitz's typically tipped near the corners onto a gallery, 291. Perhaps more importantly, backing paper to form a border around the

88 Rebinding of the Camera Work Collection print and tipped to the text paper. In some and flow of the paper ensured that the later editions, the prints were on opening ability of the volumes was limited calendared paper. in the extreme. It placed excessive strain on the text paper at the spine and was The text block comprised folios gathered inadequate for exhibition and general into sections which were link stitched and accession purposes. the spine of the text block (unlined) was adhered with animal glue. Blocked printed INITIAL REBINDING THE CAMERA WORK limp covers completed each edition. COLLECTION These had large yap edges (about 8 – 10 It was obviously necessary to reverse the mm) and were adhered to the end leaves inadequacies of the forwarding of the and glued to the text block spine. From volumes if exhibition were to be possible. the evidence of original bindings sighted, In short, the volumes would need to be both the poor paper quality of the covers pulled down and rebound. In these and their construction made them circumstances, it seemed prudent to relatively short lived. The extended yap consider rebinding back in something akin edges deteriorated mechanically both from to their original formats, i.e. as individual use and storage and the spines of the editions. This would have the twin virtues covers broke apart with use as a result of of not having such cumbersome annual their being glued to the spine of the text volumes and allow for a greater variety of block. exhibitable materials in future circumstances (rather than only one leaf of THE CAMERA WORK PUBLICATIONS AS an annual volume). It also suited the PURCHASED BY THE ANG looming deadline for the exhibition in The set purchased by the ANG in 1976 question in that only the selected materials had been rebound in annual volumes needed rebinding within the timeframe. comprising four editions per volume, or five per volume where a special edition It was further decided that, if binding as had been published in a particular year. In individual editions was to be done, it was all but a few volumes, the original spine appropriate that it should be in sympathy folds of the publications had been with that of the original publications, albeit, guillotined. In all volumes, the head, tail not as an exact facsimile. For material for and fore edges had been cropped the exhibition and in consultation with the (presumably after sewing). The covers conservation Department of the NGA, the had likewise been cropped with most following procedure was adopted. being discarded other than the front cover of the first edition within the annual volume The covers and added end leaves of the and (presumably) its mating back cover. annual volumes to be pulled were These two covers had been guarded in removed and the spines of the text blocks with cloth guards at the front and back of were cleaned of animal glue and residue each volume. The cropping of the covers using a methyl cellulose poultice to soften. at the fore edges more often than not The volumes were then collated and all passed through the printed edition stitching removed. In regard to the latter, number. the process was laborious; it did not ever fully become clear how the stitching had The annual text blocks had been been carried out. There appeared to be overstitched into sections and an interweaving between the overcast subsequently sewn on sawn in cords with stitching and that relating to the sawn in kettle stitches at head and tail. The text cords. The printing inks were tested and blocks were case bound into green cloth proved highly fugitive to water. As a covered coverings with gold stamping on result, all hopes of aqueous treatment and the spines showing the title and the year of de-acidification were abandoned. The text publication. The combination of the was separated into the individual editions. overstitching and sewing methods, together with the relatively poor quality For the few volumes where the spine folds

Rebinding of the Camera Work Collection 89 had not been guillotined, the spines of the yap to that of the original publication. folios were reinforced with kouzo paper Unlike the original bindings however, the guards using starch paste and covers were not adhered to the text block reassembled into their original sections. spine. For the other volumes, the individual leaves were guarded to form folios using SUBSEQUENT REVIEW AND FURTHER WORK kouzo paper guards and assembled into After these initial bindings were done for sections. It was not possible to ensure the exhibition, the NGA decided to that the sectioning formed was that of the proceed over time to extend the work to original publications as few were available encompass the entire Camera Work to consult. However, attempts were made collection. Before doing so, a review was to follow the pattern demonstrated in those made of the work already done. The that had not been cropped at the spine. covers were exhibiting some minor Moreover, there seemed to be a cockling of the yap edges. In addition, it reasonably consistent and logical pattern was felt that, despite the use of good established by the formatting of the quality materials, the covering process material within the text. was to some extent building in a number of the structural deficiencies of the original The new individual text blocks were link publications, namely, relatively flimsy yap stitched with linen thread. Loose guards edges that in time would be susceptible to of kouzo paper were incorporated around mechanical damage, a covering that was the first and last sections of each for later in effect a case binding which relied attachment to end leaves. Single folio end almost solely for its durability on the leaves were made, front and back for strength of the spine fold of the end leaves each, from grey bugra paper and sewn and the potential of the covering spine onto the text block with grey silk thread material to become dislodged. anchored to the linen stitching of the text block. The loose guard was adhered to Following that review, a proposal was put the end leaves using starch paste. to the NGA (and accepted) to provide a more robust and long term structure while In order to maximise the opening quality, still retaining the form of the original it was intended to have a non-adhesive publications. The early preparation spine. However, the text block spines remained the same, up to the guarding showed a tendency to become concave and sectioning of the text. From there it with opening. As a result, following starch diverged. paste washing, the spines were glued using buffered EVA moderated with the Rather than link stitching, the text blocks addition of approximately 25% methyl were stitched with linen thread on to three cellulose. A great deal of attention was 20 mm wide, equally spaced fine Dutch given to adhesive control at this point so linen tapes with kettle stitches 15 mm in that only the minimum amount necessary from head and tail. Loose guards of kouzo to control concavity penetrated between paper were still incorporated. Single folio the sections without inhibiting the opening end leaves were made, front and back for of the text. After application, the text block each, from grey bugra paper and an spine was thoroughly cleaned of all glue extended flange of the same paper was residues. A light aero linen liner was then tipped to the inside of the end leaves adhered over the text block spine. extending outwards from the spine and folded around them. These were sewn Pieces of Canson Bristol board (0.4 mm) onto the text block with the stitching the same size as the text block were cut passing through the fold of the extended and adhered to the front and back fly flange and loose guards adhered. The leaves. Each volume was then full spine of the text block was glued as before covered with grey bugra paper with the with careful attention to adhesive control covering paper extending over the head, but no liners were added. tail and fore edge to form a similar sized The covering method was greatly

90 Rebinding of the Camera Work Collection modified. New split board covers were their structure in doing so. Likewise, for made from two thicknesses of Canson normal accessioning, the bindings can be Bristol board the inner board having been treated similarly. lined with grey bugra paper. (About half way through the project the Bristol board REVERSIBILITY became virtually impossible to access in It is common to claim that one’s processes feasible quantities and a switch was made in binding can be reversed without danger to buffered library board of the same to the original materials. During this gauge.) The boards were sized so as to project, one occasion transpired to test provide a book square around the head, this assertion. Some material had not tail and fore edge similar in size to that of been incorporated into one of the volumes the yap edge of the original publication and to do so required disassembling the and a gap of some 5 mm was allowed at binding and reworking it. Totally pulling of the spine for hinging. The boards were it was achieved with losses only to the attached by sandwiching the linen tapes added guards of the outermost folios of and the extended flange between the two each of the sections. The remnants of thicknesses of board. The insertion of the these were removed by slight moistening extended flange, apart from providing and were renewed for rebinding after greater strength to the covering structure, adding the new material. We believe that having been anchored by stitching through the major factor relating to this reversibility its fold, ensured that on opening there was was the strictness of the adhesive control a continuation of the grey paper from the on the text block spine, ensuring that no end leaves over the hinge area to the grey glue penetrated beneath or beyond the lining on the inside board. The end result starch pasted guards. of these processes was a robust split board binding still retaining a relatively REFERENCES limp board quality and with yap edges Roger Piatt-Hull, 1970, Camera Work: An similar to those originally envisaged. American quarterly, Northwestern University, unpublished thesis. The bindings were completed by the Clarkson, Christopher,1982 ‘Limp Vellum Binding’, The Red Gull Press, England, 1982 making and fitting of non adhered paper coverings around the split boards and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS spine to provide a similar external The authors would like to thank the present appearance as the originals. This and past conservation and curatorial staff covering was adapted from that used by involved during the course of the project Clarkson (1982) on his limited edition including Susie Bioletti, Robert Deane, Fiona book. It totally covers the external and Kemp, Geoffery Major, Gail Newton, Anne internal faces of the boards and the spine O’Heir, James Ward and Andrea Wise. and is structured so that it remains permanently in place without adhesive AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY while also flexing adequately on opening Heather McPherson trained in conservation and closing. and fine bookbinding at Guildford County College in the UK, completing the course in the early 1980s. On return to Australia, she worked The volumes bound for the 1990s for a short period at the NSW State Records exhibition were redone in this manner at Office and then established her own private the end of the project. conservation practice specialising in archives and rare books. That practice has continued EXHIBITION AND GENERAL ACCESS since. For the past ten years she has also Since the project was completed, the NGA held a part time position with the Australian mounted a major exhibition of its Camera Museum as Archives and Rare Books Work collection in February, this year. Conservator. The rebound editions were able to be Darryl McPherson commenced in conservation exhibited opened at pages of choice following a 17-year career in engineering and almost totally flat and without the need for business. He joined with and trained under support beneath. No strain was placed on Heather McPherson from 1987 and has

Rebinding of the Camera Work Collection 91 continued as a partner in that private practice since then. Their area of specialization is in archives and rare books.

Heather and Darryl McPherson Bookbinders Heather McPherson Pty Ltd Goulburn NSW

92 Rebinding of the Camera Work Collection