Introduction to Rolls C and D, circa Spring 1961

 

Research in progress. October 2003

 

Page one of Roll C Thumbnail images
Page one of Roll D Thumbnail images

Home

 

In selecting the first 12 rolls from the Fox Movie Flash collection to scan, an attempt was made to sample a cross section of the much larger whole (960 rolls). Although Joseph Selle seems to have practiced this unglamorous, unresearched form of "street vendor" photography steadily thru the 1940s, beginning perhaps as early as the 1930s, the absence of nitrate film stock suggests that the rolls which survive date from no earlier than the 1950s (film manufacturers generally ceased production of dangerous nitrate based films by 1951). There are no external clues to the chronology of the surviving rolls of Kodak, Ansco and Dupont film.

Thus, our efforts to achieve variety were based on gross morphological differences such as overall dense rolls (over-exposed and/or over-developed), overall thin exposures (under-exposure and/or under-development), widely differing ranges of edge-printed ticket numbers (there seems to be overlap in ranges of numbers - no insight yet if any chronological implications can be drawn from these), different film stocks, and to a limited extent different subjects (some rolls clearly evidence time spent at the corner of the Flood Building on Market, others seem more focused on Union Square area, or Cliff House).

Very difficult to judge is the overall potential for interesting images in rolls of 1500 negatives. Among the 12 rolls scanned, we do seem to have succeeded in picking a couple of clunkers. These seem inferior both in technical qualities - many images blurred due to camera shake, improper focus (or both), erratic exposures - as well as finesse - the photographer's skill in timing and positioning himself relative to the flow of pedestrians to get more visually interesting photographs. One begins to wonder if Selle had his "good days" and his "bad days", if he developed his skills over time, or, if the 'clunker' rolls were shot by an employee who just hadn't learned the technique.

From a business perspective, it may not have mattered very much. Buyers didn't see the finished product in advance. They probably had no 'return' priviledges. On receipt of a poor picture, the reaction may have been, "Well, that's me (or us) - isn't it terrible! Guess I wasted my 50 cents." Favorable "word of mouth" wasn't likely to have been an important component of Selle's (relative) success. It would have been a rare occasion if, indeed, anyone ever ventured downtown to the Market Street area in hopes of finding Selle there in which case he gladly would have snapped on request.

The rolls designated "C" and "D" are among the more interesting, and are tentatively attributed to Selle himself. We invite you to apply your own detective skills and hope the detail of your observations leads to better insights than our own. So far, we deduce that both rolls were shot in the Spring - Woolworth's store window references to "Spring Festival Days" (C roll) and "May dresses" (D roll) as well as the light colored coats people are wearing give good confidence in this conclusion.

Most of the rolls (the "night" roll, H being an exception) seem to represent about one week's worth of shooting. Following changes from shadows to overcast is tricky because these sometimes alternate every dozen frames or so. Clocks appear from time to time however, and can be tracked from mid-afternoon times, to morning times through several cycles - especially in roll C. Roll D offers one key frame of a movie marquee - this time it's the Guild at 1069 Market St (2 blocks down from Selle's favorate intersections closer to Union Square). "The Wackiest Ship in the Army" opened in 1961 which is our best guess for the date of this roll. We judge roll C to be a year or two earlier. Feel free to challenge this hunch.

We have no way to know if Selle took pleasure in the occasional 'zinger' - to use Gary Winogrand's term for the chance convergence of elements, some totally accidental, that succeeded in creating the wry, or ironic, or bizarre flavor he and other street artist photographers tried to achieve (certainly with no intention of pleasing their subjects). We don't even know if Selle printed the negatives for which no orders materialized (for sure the majority). Nonetheless, from a 2003 perspective, and familiar with the trends in creative photography both pre-dating Selle and subsequently, it's hard not to see frames that a curator might have encouraged him to print. Selle limited his market to the subjects of his photographs, not even realizing that there may have been another potential market in the art world.

Sequencing thru rolls C and D, there are days when he seems to have been 'on' - when frame after frame seem to capture more interesting looking people at more interesting moments, even at times appearing to be reacting to some mini-performance from the photographer himself. Or could it just be the daily differences in the mood of the people on the street, or the differing densities of pedestrians which at times create the interesting juxtapositions that Selle captured without intending to add interest in this way.