From: kenneth wayne peralta (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Feb 10 2004 - 13:22:51 PST
n. - a person who inherits or is entitled by law or by the terms of a will
to inherit the estate of another
the issues regarding jack smithıs estate are not questions of who is best
suited to preserve his archive.
the issues are about truth, ethics, and who has the moral and legal right to
decide what is best for jackıs estate. according to many people who
witnessed jack smithıs death and itıs aftermath, there are serious
unaddressed questions regarding the legitimacy of the plaster foundation
inc.ıs possession and claims to title to jack smithıs estate.
the pf inc. directorsı motives in fighting the public administratorıs
efforts to recover the archive should be explicitly stated, given as was
posted last week, there is a contract between jack smithıs sister and her
law firm obligating them both that jackıs estate be:
placed at a scholarly or non-profit institution
sold as a collection and not in pieces
be publicly accessible without rental fees
if this is something the pf inc. also supports, as written by j.hoberman,
why not celebrate this effort and support it 100%? also, rather than
accusing us of ³...purporting to speak for the Slater family... ,² why
doesnıt j.hoberman or penny arcade call the attorney for jackıs sister and
ask him what he plans to do with the archive? thatıs how i found out. it
took me about 45 seconds.
j.hobermanıs assertion that our jack smith documentary production has
³...enormously benefited from the work of the Plaster Foundation in general
and me in particular,² in fact is false. our company has seen exactly 9
photographic negatives in the 15 months since we executed our licensing
agreement and paid a substantial licensing fee. this is 9 out of the 2,475
negatives in the archive, according to the inventory prepared under the
direction of alanna heiss, the executive director of ps1. we have
outstanding and unsatisfied requests for over 50 negatives, chosen from
about 350 individual slides and exposures on 8.5² x 11² content sheets from
the archive.
each of the 9 negatives received was damaged for handling to the point of
needing significant restoration, containing both deep and fine scratches.
also on each, in varying degrees, the emulsion was delaminating from itıs
substrate (i.e. the exposures are effectively ³disappearing²). while i am
not an expert in photonegative archival, the technician that drum scanned
the negatives expressed that the negatives arenıt being stored using proper
archival technique (i.e. using archival quality plastic sheets to protect
the negatives from exposure). the negatives were delivered to me in what
appeared to be standard linen stationary envelopes. notably, each of the
previous deliveries of photo materials from the pf inc. also demonstrated
the images are not being carefully archived, and we ourselves organized and
placed into clean sleeves the images to protect them. last week i reiterated
to jim a written offer, first made to him in november 2000 and two times
since, to provide experienced interns and archivists, at no cost nor any
obligation, to assist the proper protection and cataloging of the photo
materials. each previous time, jim rejected these offers.
among the other items in the archive inventory we hoped to access are:
2600 photographic slides
800-1000 working notes
499 program announcements
220 bibliographic/publicity materials
200 costume props 90-100 books (from jackıs library)
78 pieces of correspondence
53 costume illustrations
52 drawings
41 collages
since first asking in spring of 2002 to access non-photographic / non-film
materials, neither access nor any circumstances under which we might be
granted access to these materials has been proposed (additional license fees
or otherwise). many reasons why have been offered along the way, before
penny retracted her ³altruistic offer² to yield access (penny controls these
items, j.hoberman controls the photographs, jerry tartaglia controls the
films).
i do not claim the pf inc. should not go without credit. both penny arcade
and jim hoberman have demonstrated interest and expertise in jack smith, and
both have indeed taken actions to preserve and promote jack smithıs legacy.
even if, as many people have asserted, they benefited personally from
expense paid vacations / film presentations, lecture fees, scholarly
expertise, material for performances, or even financial compensation, credit
for contributing to jack smithıs legacy is due and should be acknowledged.
also importantly, our access to the jack smith film materials under license
has gone smoothly by and large, and jerry tartaglia of franklin media has
been supportive, helpful, and stayed true to his word.
but our efforts to pay homage to jack smithıs work, ideas, and life have
been continually frustrated by the pf inc. beyond the films and seeing some
350 photograph exposures, we have been locked out of jackıs archive. one
would expect the stewards of jack smithıs work to enthusiastically embrace
all efforts to raise exposure to and preserve the work of this
groundbreaking and celebrated artist.
the claim that our production has ³enormously benefited² from the j.hoberman
and penny arcade is made with the same fabricated authenticity and vacant
moral authority as the pf inc.ıs illegitimate possession and claims to
ownership of jack smithıs art.
the legal and historical record will speak for itself.
kenneth wayne peralta
producer, locusta penguina
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.