Carnegie Hall is seeking to evict photographer Editta Sherman, who has lived in her photography studio above Carnegie Hall for the past 60 years and photographed hundreds of show-biz luminaries over the years. Here she is with her 100+-year-old camera and her portrait of actor Anthony Quinn (photo by Colleen M. Delaney).
One good reason for letting her stay? She's 97 years old. The people who run Carnegie Hall must be pretty hard-hearted to not let her live out her life in her longtime home. Let her stay, we say!
READ MORE at npr.org.
___________________
Mike (Thanks to Bill Mitchell)
"Carnegie Hall officials told New York Magazine that they want to renovate the studios to make way for offices and classrooms for young musicians."
Not knowing the situation in detail it's probably not right to pass judgement, but I'd be concerned about the historical structure itself as well as the tenants.
For example, are these offices needed for the hall's operation, or are they to be rental offices that will generate income? Same question about the classrooms. And are there any other plans? A shopping mall and theme park, for instance?
Too little information, but my gut reaction is to throw my fist in the air and yell "Let her stay!"
Posted by: Kent | Monday, 10 November 2008 at 05:12 PM
Mike, I read about it in UK newspapers, could not quite believe it, the proceeds of greed have been splattered all over the world's news and her in a microprism of irationality the same thing happens! It was also reported that she had asked for $10 million to facilitate her leaving. More strength to her if the report is correct! Any idea of who is trying to get her out?
Posted by: Marten Collins | Monday, 10 November 2008 at 05:18 PM
Dumb, very dumb. Let the lady stay. Who in the company came up with this "bright" idea?
Posted by: Peter in Bangkok | Monday, 10 November 2008 at 08:48 PM
... but she'll leave for $10MM. I think we've established what's going on here ... we're just haggling over price.
Posted by: John Abee | Monday, 10 November 2008 at 09:56 PM
In France it's impossible to force someone leave his home if he's more than 65 years old. I don't think that we need laws for everything, but in this strange period, the meaning of "let do" is "let the big sharks eat the small fish".
François
Posted by: François Colou | Tuesday, 11 November 2008 at 05:19 AM
Agreed, but how is she looking after herself and the space that she is occupying; is there a fire hazard, are there rats and mice as roommates? Many questions should be reviewed before jumping to conclusions. If she is capable of looking after everything then find someone from the Pierre to pay, otherwise ---?
Posted by: Harold McNamara | Tuesday, 11 November 2008 at 09:06 AM
Dear old Dale Carnegie himself would certainly be disgusted at such a suggestion. Those who manage this great traditional institution would do well to read about the man who gave his name to it and his teachings on treating others with respect.
Posted by: michael | Tuesday, 11 November 2008 at 10:51 AM
Come on, she's only saying $10 million because she knows they won't give it to her. I say let her stay, obviously.
Posted by: Zak | Tuesday, 11 November 2008 at 12:57 PM
This story deserved better photography coverage. It looks like they just sent a reporter with a digital point-and-shoot!
Posted by: photogdave | Tuesday, 11 November 2008 at 12:57 PM
"Dear old Dale Carnegie himself..."
Ha! I hear he liked to encourage the study of melons, too.
Mike J.
Posted by: Mike J. | Tuesday, 11 November 2008 at 01:42 PM
Dale Carnegie? ... Stop, you're killing me.
Posted by: J. Abee | Tuesday, 11 November 2008 at 03:43 PM
Dale Carnegie indeed... This incident seems to be right in line with Andrew Carnegie's legacy as a robber baron.
Posted by: Andre | Tuesday, 11 November 2008 at 03:44 PM
I can't fault Carnegie Hall for wanting to make more efficient/profitable use of the space they own (and I personally think rent control is an abomination). But tossing out a 97 year old lady is just plain dumb on so many levels.
Wouldn't it make more sense to strike some kind of deal that would give her a place to live, and maybe allow the Hall to display her amazing life's work?
(As for ol' Andrew Carnegie, he was certainly no saint, but he wasn't that bad, overall. And of course his vast philanthropic legacy was only possible because he was so very tight with his money. Impoverished philanthropists don't get very far.)
Posted by: Bryan C | Tuesday, 11 November 2008 at 04:25 PM
Mike,
Can you tell me what's going on with her lens? The cable release seems to be welded to the lens board, and there's sort of a lopsided ... thing (aperture?) behind the lens glass.
The only view cameras I've ever used are a Sinar-F and a Sinar-P; I am guessing that her camera will make perfect sense to anybody familiar with older equipment.
Thanks.
-Julie
Posted by: Julie Heyward | Tuesday, 11 November 2008 at 07:34 PM
Julie,
I'm not an expert, but I believe it's a Packard shutter, which is activated by air pressure from a rubber bulb which is what she's holding in her hand. Hopefully a real expert will chime in here with better information if I'm wrong.
Mike J.
Posted by: Mike J. | Tuesday, 11 November 2008 at 08:34 PM
Sure looks like a Packard.
Turns out the company is still in business:
http://www.packardshutter.com/
More detail here:
http://www.skgrimes.com/packard/index.htm
In the photo on this website, the hose nipple is visible below to the left of the hole in the lensboard.
Posted by: DaveH | Tuesday, 11 November 2008 at 10:51 PM
Indeed, it's most likely a Packard shutter. There have been other behind-the-lens shutters, but Packards are the most common.
I need better upholstery on my darkcloth.
Posted by: David A. Goldfarb | Wednesday, 12 November 2008 at 11:14 AM