Talk:Edgar de Evia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

This seems to be an overblown vanity page. I am doing some research to see if we can make it more balanced, more accurate, and more in line with any actual notability. Lexis/Nexis has only three hits for this guy.

1. he is mentioned in the New York Times obit for Robert Denning, "Robert Denning, 78, Champion of Lavish Decor," September 5, 2005. The mentions amount to the following:

" In 1942, when Mr. Denning was a student at the High School of Music and Art, he met Edgar de Evia, an aristocratic Mexican-born medical researcher, and became his companion and eventual business partner." . . . "[Denning] and Mr. de Evia, who became a prominent commercial photographer, went on to found a real estate company and become owners of an estate in Greenwich, Conn. They also lived on three floors of one of the grandest houses in Manhattan, the Gertrude Rhinelander Waldo mansion, an 1898 faux-French chateau at Madison Avenue and 72nd Street." . . . "In 1959, Mr. Denning became involved with Vincent Fourcade, a playboy scion of a French banking family, and left Mr. de Evia."

2. He is mentioned in the paid memorials in the Times for Mr. Denning, which notice was paid for by David McJonathan-Swarm, same person who seems to have written this page and some other vanity pages.

3. New York Times obit for "Vincent Fourcade, 58, Decorator Known for His Ornate Interiors," on December 25, 1992, has a very brief mention, "It was during that time that Mr. Fourcade met Mr. [Robert Denning], who was then working for the photographer Edgar de Evia."

ABI Inform has one additional hit,

New York Magazine, "As Time Goes By," December 19, 1988. Inform doesn't have complete text but the summary reads "The abode of photographer Edgar de Evia is a real home, filled with objects assembled over a lifetime."

That's it. Nothing more. The entry currently states that this guy has written a bunch of novels but Amazon has nothing and Alibris has nothing, so I suspect that they were never published. He has also never published a book of photography that I can find, or been the subject of anybody else's book, all of which would seem to belie the article's claim to notability. No newspaper or magazine in the Nexis or ABI/Inform universe chose to run an obit on him when he died. Uucp 14:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: lest anybody think my "obituary test" is too tough; Nexis contains 99 obits for commercial photographers in the last two years. Nobody bothered to write one for de Evia, from which I conclude that he was not noteworthy. Uucp 03:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum2: I checked the Newslibrary database of over 1100 regional newspapers today and came up with basically the same hits as Nexis had, though from smaller papers. He's mentioned in a few obits for Robert Denning and one for Vincent Fourcade. No source mentions him at any greater length, or in any other context. Uucp 21:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

As a reporter and writer who has written numerous article about individuals whose importance or preeminence in their day has been forgotten or overlooked by history, I think you're being awfully harsh, even gratuitously so, re this entry. Edgar de Evia was indeed a well-established and frequently published photographer in his day. Whether his photography was to your liking or whether you find him important or not compared to other photographers in his field in his day is immaterial. What matters is that his career is an can be established through footnoted material as well as any other sources, published or unpublished, including but not limited to archival materials, et cetera. To damn an article largely because Google or Lexis-Nexis (both of which are hardly inclusive of every bit of published material and which only go back in history so far) don't mention him frequently enough to your liking is also ridiculous. Part of the glory of Wikipedia, for many contributors, is the opportunity to highlight individuals, places, incidents that are of interest to others, whether that interest is major or minor. (The subject of one of your articles, Rita Jenrette, in the grand scheme of things, is impossibly minor, though certainly entertaining and well worth reading about.) It is, after all, an encyclopaedia. I vote for the de Evia article to stay in place, be streamlined to accord more closely with Wiki guidelines, and to lard the damn thing with as many relevant footnotes as possible. I'll be happy to help with this. I did not know de Evia -- though I met him once, in an elevator, when I worked at ELLE Decor and he was a neighbor of one of our editors, who admired his work greatly. However I do know a variety of individuals in the New York City art and design scene (including Roger Prigent, who was a widely published fashion photographer in the 1950s and 1960s), who were around in the 1940s and 1950s and who knew of de Evia, his reputation, and his photography. Mowens35 14:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken if you believe the purpose of wikipedia is "to highlight individuals... that are of interest to others, whether that interest is major or minor." That is the purpose of a personal webpage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has well established tests for notability that entries must pass. Uucp 14:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are being especially vigilant elsewhere on the site, Uucp, rather than focussing on one entry. If so, you won't have any time to write any articles of your own. Mowens35 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the concern. Uucp 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar de Evia Archives

What's the "Edgar de Evia Archives" used as a source? Is it a publication related to Edgar de Evia or some friend of him? The claim that he worked for Assossiated Press, for instace, would be better backup'd with a Assossiated Press related source. --Abu Badali 19:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu, do pay stubs help? information about his work for AP, documents, etc, are in his archives in New York City ... what more do you want??? it's first-hand information ... I have called Associated Press, but the company rep says that their records may not go back that far ... Mowens35 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abu, de Evia's entire career's worth of archives -- photographs, documents, checks, letters, diaries, journals, negatives, photographs, et cetera -- are in New York City, with the executor of his estate ... the archives, which are extensive, have not yet been donated to any organization/library/college, etc ... that is why I have cited it that way ... Mowens35 20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned with the use of non-verifiable sources -- the name of an archive but no details. Why would a librarian tell you "he photographed some covers for us in the 1950s" but not provide a title or date? You leave no information that would allow anybody else to follow up on this or research it further. A citation of the "conde nast archives" or "his lover's private collection of his photos" (which sounds to be what you and Abu are discussing above), is little (no?) better than no source at all.
Maybe this article should be nixed until more verifiable information exists. Maybe the private collection could be donated to the International Center of Photography in Manhattan, and maybe they will mention it in their catalog or even put on an exhibition. Something like that. Uucp 20:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, we are doing the best we can. Cindy Cathcart, the librarian at Conde Nast, is assembling a list of de Evia citations and is calling me back. I do hope that will help your temper.Mowens35 20:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My article about Pauline de Rothschild relies heavily on letters, journals, et cetera, given me by her family, for a biography I am writing about her for Clarkson Potter. Surely this is a similar situation -- verifiable information, firsthand, with citations. Even published books do that, ie rely on archives of materials not available to others at the present time. Mowens35 20:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well Mitch, the difference is that once the contents appear in the book, they are available to all, whereas, when you cite a private archive, we have to take your word for it. While you're probably not making these listings up, what's the point of a citation that amounts to "trust me"? Wikipedia has a firm policy against original research for exactly this reason. Uucp 20:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so perhaps my Rothschild bio should be scheduled for deletion as well. I'm a researcher, a writer, and a scholar of sorts; it's what I do. And everything I write can be backed up with a document or a source. Otherwise, I wouldn't mention it.Mowens35 21:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"First-hand information" is too close to
original research. Are you sure unpublished material can be used as source? Also, this whole effort seems strange in that, the most important thing to prove here is that he was an influential photographer. Simply sourcing all the trivial info about his life won't save this bio from the afd (imho).--Abu Badali 20:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Nope, I've already double-checked about "original research," which is, according to Wikipedia, make new assertions, new interpretations, et cetera. I have been down this road before and am careful not to make any new interpretations of any kind. And, yes, I am not making the information up. If you seen my bio, my professional background is that I'm a little above making things up. I'm an expert in my field, as are many scientists, et cetera, who contribute their own research to Wikipedia, as has often been stated in the press.Mowens35 21:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to check Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. specially the first phrase: Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources". I don't private colletions or phone calls are acceptable. --Abu Badali 21:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original versus source-based research, according to Wiki guidelines

Directly from Wiki (see second graph, which is what I'm focussing on -- itals throughout my own addition):

Research that draws predominantly on primary sources is generally discouraged, in favor of research based on secondary sources. However, where an article (1) makes only uncontentious descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events). These are relatively rare exceptions and contributors drawing predominately or solely from primary sources should be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions. NOTE: I'm trying to get published source information that will obviate the need to mention the de Evia archives at all where applicable, but I have to put something in the meantime

Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from primary and secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Mowens35 21:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch, the very text you cite requires that the primary sources must cover "uncontentious" material and be "easily verifiable." I think the discussion on this page demonstrates that with very few exceptions, the references on de Evia's page fail both tests. Please understand that nobody here dislikes de Evia, we're just not yet convinced that he was notable as anything other than Robert Denning's one-time partner. All of the material that you and David McJonathan-Swarm are going to so much trouble to add to Wikipedia may be better added to de Evia's personal website, where the original research and notability tests would not apply. Uucp 22:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By "collecting and organizing information from primary and secondary sources" I'm sure it's meant published primary and secondary sources. --Abu Badali 11:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you're being "sure" doesn't do it for me ... i need an official statement ... the Wiki statement leaves wiggle room, which is Wiki's fault ... there should be no wiggle room if no wiggle room is allowed ... and if the information if published on the webpage, does it then make the material usable on Wiki??? 13:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't ask you to take my word on it. I ask you to read the first line (and all the following ones) on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources". --Abu Badali 13:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Should" is different than "must" ... get Wiki to make that wiggle room "should" into "must", and we wouldn't be having this discussion, don't you agree? Mowens35 13:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re "easily verifiable" ... when library or public archival collections are cited in Wiki, as they often are, a member of the public must generally make an appointment to see those said materials, as they are available to be used and utilized by the public, general or specialist. The de Evia archives also are available to the public, according to Mr McJ-Swarm, under the same access criteria a library makes, ie by appointment and for scholarly or historical purposes. I honestly see very little difference, excepting the institutional stamp. Mowens35 13:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Museum Collections

The American Museum of Advertising & Design in Milwaukee believes it has de Evia in its collection and is checking on public availability/access to these materials. Mowens35 14:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

This is a list of changes I did and of portions of this article I think are problematic.

  • "Recitals given in New York City by Miirrha Alhambra are mentioned in The New York Times in the 1920s and 1930s."
    • It may be improved by mentioning some issues. done
  • "a member of a prominent Mexican political family",
    • "proiminent", when not backed, is
      POV
      .       gone.
  • "Based on immigration and other official records, it appears that Evia altered his surname to de Evia sometime in his youth."
    • I remember there was a link to something regarding this... reposted
  • "The head of the Dalton School Alumni Office confirmed this date of graduation by telephone on 28 August 2006."
    • Unless it's planned to undisclose the telephone number (which is an abhorrent idea I reject), this doesn't sound as a source. url added. still a weird source but... see also: Talk:Edgar_de_Evia#out_of_curiosity.
  • As with much of the professional information cited in this article, the photographer's time with the Associated Press is documented in the Edgar de Evia Archives, New York City, New York. Where this information can be verified via other sources, the reference to the de Evia archives will be replaced.
    • This is not different than {{
      fact
      }}. I'm replacing it.
  • "...the prominent
    homeopathic physician Dr. Guy Beckley Stearns
    "
    • "prominent" is
      a word to be avoided
      .
      • It was replaced by "pioneer", what I still believe is innacurate. Adjectives removed.
  • According to de Evia..." and "He also said that..."
    • Where these sayings come from? they are now changed and marked with {{
      fact
      }}      .
  • "...a celebrated editor..."
    • "celebrated" is
      another word to be avoided
      .       gone
  • ""a rather persuasive ... reminder" that black-and-white photography has "a useful place, even in a world of color.""
    • This needs to be fixed but I can't do it. The quotation is too broken and may seem taken out of context. What the whole phrase was? done
  • "Melvin Sokolsky, a fashion photographer who created iconic images for Vogue and other publications..."
    • His article (which imho suffer from some of the same problems as this one) doesn't mentions Vogue. Removing for a while. There's always the wikilink for somenone wanting deeper info on him;
      • The wording is still praising much more than his own article does. (And his article doesn't cite independent source as well).
  • "Later in his career, de Evia was the creative director for a company that..."
    • When exactly is "Later in his career" and what's the company's name?
      • Partially done. What's the company name?
  • "...Information from de Evia's companion, David McJonathan-Swarm, executor of the photographer's estate..." and "According to David McJonathan-Swarm..."
    • The whole verifiability problem started because all information in this article's early versions came directly from User:D_C_McJonathan. Are these still a being used as source? NOTE: I'm not saying it's unreliable. The problem is that we should avoid primary sources whenever possible.
      • Still a big problem. Even he is even the source for a company's foundation date. There must be some public records for those.
  • "Models photographed" and "Personalities photographed"
    • What are the circumstances? Was he hired by some magazine to photograph the models? Did the models hire him to photograph them? Did him hire the models? Was he a close friend of the models? Why are so many of theses photographs kept at the "Edgar de Evia Archives, New York City, New York"? For magazine works, I created the sub category "Working for magazines" (of course, rename if you prefer);
      • Progress being done.
  • "Edgar de Evia Archives, New York City, New York"
    • This is 3 times listed as a reference. The article needs to somehow explain what it is and how someone does to access it.
      • "Scholars who wish to access this archive for research purposes can contact the executor of de Evia's estate through the email address listed at deevia.com"
        • Humm... have someone done that to write this article?
  • "Company records also indicate"
    • Indicate? Could it be more precise? Still a little bit confusing, but I believe it's the best we cant get.
  • See also: List of photographers known for portraying males erotically
    • The article would benefit from mentioning his works on this subject. Were them for hire? A hobby? For sale? gone
  • External links
    • Do really find-a-grave or a forum post in thefashionspot.com add anything to this article?gone
I have fixed several issues you regard as problems. As to your difficulty over believing the photography of the models, the de Evia archives retains all the original negatives and proof sheets of work that de Evia was hired to do for magazines such as Vogue, et cetera. As for the Dalton School information, how else do you intend for that to be corroborated beyond having it cited that the Dalton archives says, yes, he did, in 1931, and that a photograph of him as a student hangs in the school, in the company of the school's founder? Mowens35 18:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The best solution would have a library interested in receiving, as a donation, material related to this man's life, including school documents. --Abu Badali 20:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abu, I think you are unfamiliar with how a photographer or a writer works professionally. When a photographer takes a picture, on assignment, most of the time (excepting for specific wording in an assignment contract) he/she retains the negatives and proof sheets, ie sheets of film that show various exposures, et cetera, of a particular shot. The magazine will print one of those exposures but not all of them, and for many years, it was common for the rights to the photographs to revert to the photographer after publication of the pictures. It is the same for writers, who retain the hard copy of the article and put it in their files. The de Evia archives, similar to the Louise Dahl-Wolfe Archives at the Cenbter for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona, retains all the negatives (developed and undeveloped), proof sheets, et cetera. This is nothing unusual.Mowens35 18:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not fully understood how this is related to any of my comments :| --Abu Badali 20:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other general issues

  1. Whenever some publication or insititution is mentioned as praising Mr. Evia's work, I used wikilinks so that the reader gets a better background on them(like in Popular Photography Color Annual, American Institute of Homeopathy or APPLIED PHOTOGRAPHY). If some wikilink is broken, feel free to make it point to the right place.
  2. I splitted "Carrer" in "Ealier carrers" and "Carrer as a photographer". I believe it's good to separete the photograph work from the other unrelated ones, but if you can think of better names for the sub-sections, feel free to change.
    I liked the section renaming to Early career and Photography career. Sorry for my misspellings. Also, try to use readable edit summaries most of the time, just not in special cases :)

--Abu Badali 20:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New issue

well, would you like me to delete it? it gives a citation from someone who worked with Evia, citing Evia's agent's name, et cetera ... "not exactly a great source" but one I can replace when something more concrete arrives ... you seem to think this entry be fixed in a moment ... nothing on Wikipedia can ... until I can find something else to replace it, I would like it to stay ... Mowens35 22:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

out of curiosity

Was he really 21 when he graduated from high school? Uucp 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Dalton School, yes, he was 21 ... it is in their records as such ... I have no idea why and neither does the school. It was more than 70 years ago. Mowens35 18:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may also have something to do with the fact that de Evia typically gave his birth year as 1912, which would have made him an 18/19 year old Dalton grad, though his birth certificate (and www.ellisisland.org) shows that he was actually born in 1910. Mowens35 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

projects initiated vs. projects published

In earlier versions of this article, David McJonathan-Swarm described de Evia as having written numerous novels, volumes of poetry, short stories, etc., without mentioning that none had ever been published. Given this frankly misleading behavior, I think it is important that the article be very clear about which photographic work by de Evia was actually published. Text that claims he "photographed extensively for Vogue," for example, may hide the reality that he took submitted a bunch of spec photos to them, but they never hired him. Text that claims Conde Nast "hired him to take photos" may hide the fact that they never used the photos he produced. The text that says he photographed various celebrities raises many questions -- were these commissioned photographic portraits, or did de Evia take a candid snapshot of Montgomery Clift's mom going into a restaurant, which David McJonathan-Swarm found in an album after his death and now presents as proof of de Evia's professional significance?

This article is improved from where it started, but given the history, it deserves continuing skepticism. Uucp 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are unfamiliar with how a photographer or a writer works professionally. When a photographer takes a picture, on assignment, most of the time (excepting for specific wording in an assignment contract) he/she retains the negatives and proof sheets, ie sheets of film that show various exposures, et cetera, of a particular shot. The magazine will print one of those exposures but not all of them, and for many years, it was common for the rights to the photographs to revert to the photographer after publication of the pictures. It is the same for writers, who retain the hard copy of the article and put it in their files. The de Evia archives, similar to the Louise Dahl-Wolfe Archives at the Cenbter for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona, retains all the negatives (developed and undeveloped), proof sheets, et cetera. This is nothing unusual.Mowens35 18:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this revised footnote explain more fully what the Conde Nast archives show/prove: According to records held by the Condé Nast Publications Library, in 1984 alone, de Evia had 193 photographs published in House & Garden, primarily of interiors of houses owned by individuals such as Helen Hayes and Gloria Vanderbilt. The Condé Nast Publication Library is an archive facility which holds, among other things, thousands of typewritten 3 x 5 cards which serve as an early index to all photographers and writers (as well as subjects and celebrities) whose work was published in any and all Condé Nast magazines from the early 1900s until the 1990s, when all such material was put on computer. In the case of photographers, for instance, the cards list in which issue and on which page number an image (or images) by that particular photographer appeared on. According to these index cards, more than 1,000 photographs by de Evia were published in Condé Nast magazines, on subjects ranging from fashion to food to interiors. These were printed in Vogue, Architectural Digest, and other magazines, from the 1950s until the 1990s. Mowens35 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
House & Garden, Vogue, and Glamour are Conde Nast Publications ... and their dates are cited, ergo they used his photographs ... would it be more helpful to you if the article included every single photography credit in his career, with dates, etc? I don't think the article would hold that list nor would Wiki want it to. According to the Reader's Guide to Periodic Literature, the Conde Nast Publication Library, and the New York Times index, this list would run to hundreds and hundreds of published citations. Any suggestions??? I would be more than happy to go to the New York Public Library, look up every citation, and post it ... in fact, I'm going to NYC tomorrow and would be happy to spend the afternoon compiling citations ... but even if I did, would you then be happy or not? Mowens35 19:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The celebrity photographs were commissioned portraits; would you like them to be posted in the article? And if so, how could you be made happy that they were actually commissioned as opposed to him sitting then subjects down and somehow forcing them to sit through a worthless photo shoot?? Mowens35 19:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool down, Mowens35. We want to improve the article in regard to WP:Reliable sources, not to make Uucp "happy". It's important to mention in the article who hired who when doing these photographs. --Abu Badali 19:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abu, you fool -- somebody volunteers to make me happy and you discourage him? I am doomed to a life of misery. Uucp 19:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... so just I hope everybody will be happy at the end. :) --Abu Badali 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm quite calm, just frustrated. What I don't think any of you understand is that very rarely does a photographer produce photography, particularly fashion photography, on spec. Photography is almost always commissioned, whether it is fashion, interior design, architecture, et cetera. Editors link up the right photographer to the right subject/location/story; photographers don't just present finished photography and have it published in 99 percent of the cases. (How do I know this? I have been a magazine and newspaper editor for more than 20 years.) Perhaps there should be a Wiki article about this; I've gone through a number of other photographer articles on Wiki and none of them seem to go the lengths of citing "commissioned work" versus "spec" ... or even distinguishing between the two in any fashion ... The photographer George Platt Lynes, for example, did both, spec, commission, and just plain experimentation, but his article makes little mention of what is what, who hired whom at what time, et cetera ... Mowens35 19:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see revised quote re scope, content, and purpose of the Condé Nast Publications Library archives which were consulted. Mowens35 19:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I would certainly agree that the fashionspot.com did not belong, and it was not I that added it. On the other hand, perhaps your are not aware that there is a Wikipedia project to add and link the articles on Find A Grave.

Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people Doc ♬ talk 03:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

my apologies; i did not know that. i am trying to delete material that may seem extraneous.Mowens35 12:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interest in improving this article

Is there still interest in improving this article? Surely, a great deal of work was done but there's just too many things yet to be fixed.... If no one complains, I'm going to remove all unsourced passages from the article so that we can better see what we really have about this person. Best regards, --Abu Badali 19:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am still assembling material from the New York Public Library and will not be finished until the end of the week or early next. Mowens35 13:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great! --Abu Badali 15:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no work is being done... Again, if no one complains, I'm going to remove all unsourced passages from the article. --Abu Badali 00:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the unsourced statements. There's still problems with the article, as some of the existing sources are not exactly acceptable (like "Edgar de Evia Archives, New York City, New York"). Also, the images posted on commons don't serve as a source for the statement that these photos were produced "for fashion magazines and commercial advertising".

As a side note, it's sad that the most well sourced part of the article is really about Mr. Evia's ancestors (that is barely off topic) and about his career as a homeopathy research assistant. As he is introduced as an "American photographer" in the first paragraph, we would better benefit from an improved Photography section. Best regards, --Abu Badali 17:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Earliest influences..."

I have a problem with this passage:

"Melvin Sokolsky, a fashion photographer who has created iconic images for Harpers Bazaar and Vogue, considered Edgar de Evia one of his earliest influences..."

When one reads this, it gives the impression that Mr. Sokolsky considered De Evia's work as an artistic influence to his style. But when we read the actual source in context:

About 1954, at an East Side barbell club, he (Mr. Sokolsky) met Bob Denning (Robert Denning de Evia's companion and business partner), who was assistant to an established advertising photographer, Edgar de Evia:

Then the Mr. Sokolsky quote reads:

"I discovered that Edgar was paid $4000 for a Jell-O ad, and the idea of escaping from my tenement dwelling became an incredible dream and inspiration."

My interpretation, now that I read the quotation in context, is that Melvin Sokolsky did not considered De Evia's an influence as an artist. It simply found it astonishing that a simple "advertising photographer" could make that much money from trivial works as "Jell-O ads", and decided to pursue a career on that field.

Any suggestions on how the article's paragraph could be changed to avoid the misinterpretation? --Abu badali (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article goes on to say: "Technical information avidly gleaned from the Condé Nast book, The Art and Technique of Color Photography, was augmented by de Evia’s answers to the "thousands of questions" Sokolsky posed. Eventually "Edgar either got bored, or I asked too many questions," and these visits constituted the sum of Sokolsky’s technical teaching. Unsurprisingly, his first attempts at photography used a lot of diffusion, in imitation of the Tissot-like effects favored by de Evia." Not only does it show de Evia's early guidance, but that Sokolsky's early photographs even looked like de Evia's. Doc ♬ talk 16:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edgar_de_Evia&oldid=1196415008"