Vintage photographers and their AKAs - A notebook

[CosmoK]

I do agree with Pepper's view about sorting out the credits: to me it's mainly a work intended to "give unto Caesar what belongs to him". Regarding the "anonymity" of photographers, I think that they already thought about it when they entered the business. Since making up an artist name and selling one's works under an alias is even more simple than choosing and registering a brand name, I believe that many photographers who wanted to keep their real name private did so.

Although far from being an expert in that matter, I can tell about the case I know best : "Serge Jacques", who has a very long career in erotic photography, used dozens of pseudonyms (some frequent, others disputed or still unknown). The interesting fact is that his "real name" is just as real as his other aliases: only the forename is real, so we can consider his full name as a "main pseudonym" and not as his real name (that I will not disclose, for the same privacy reasons exposed above by TheFool).

[CosmoK]

I have found (on a well-known auction site) a collection of letterhead papers that once belonged to Serge Jacques:

What is interesting here is the presence of some names on these papers. That confirms two already known pseudonyms (Stephane Jourdain and Sarah Joyce), while revealing two new ones, still unknown to my knowledge: Ronald Collins and Barbara Vincent.
On my part, I must admit I never saw any of these names in a photo credit, but maybe another VEF member did?...

[Meini Again]

What could be the motive for the use of multi-psuedonyms ?

If the artist had self-respect, why deny or defer their work? Why avoid praise in their career?

Personally I think it's 'money'

And a striking paralell is film director Jesus Franco. With his resurgence as a cult director in the late 90s onwards, he was quite straightforward about his earlier works under various psuedonyms. Tax.
As Jess Franco he paid tax in Switzerland for films he shot in other countries.As his employer was Swiss based and filed returns. Under his numerous psuedonyms he openly claimed he never filed any tax return in France/Switzerland/Italy etc.

The Agencies/Companies that purchased a phototographer's product, would seemingly be very blase or complicit if they knew who the photographer was, and filed under his/her main name. Filed returns for the pseudonyms as well, but only the real name paid tax. The pseudonyms,used, like Jess perhaps never admitted or filed a return on those earnings.

Just my opinion

But I can't think of a genuine reason for an artist ~ and they are artists ~ refusing praise or acknowledgement for their work.

[effCup]

Originally Posted by TheFool

isn't this entire thread something of an invasion of privacy? If a photographer chose not to be credited by their normal byline shouldn't we respect that? Linking someone with pornographic work could even, hypothetically, damage their careers. [Not likely, I know.]

The posting of models' real names (where not publicly disclosed) is banned for obvious reasons. I just don't see why photographers don't get the same respect for anonymity? Maybe I'm wrong.

I think you're right about us needing to respect their privacy. I think you've misunderstood what we're trying to do in this thread/with this topic. At no point have I asked: what was the real name of photog. XYZ. What I have instead sought to do is to find out which photog. aliases are for the same person--e.g. Jim Paris = Hank Londoner, etc. In that sense it is akin to what we try to do on vef regarding model ids. I have no interest whatsoever in whether, say, Hank Londoner is his real name, or where he now lives, or anything like that. As you say, that would be an invasion of his privacy, not to mention against vef rules--they apply to everyone incl. photogs., not just models & members.

Why bother with finding photog. akas? Well, in addition to an interest in their professional work and styles/idioms etc., it can just occasionally also be useful in assisting with model ids.

[effCup]

A probable aka for Ed Alexander is Charles Alexander.

Charles Alexander was credited for the set of Janet Kimberly in Gallery, 1975-05. Related pics. of the same model and setting had earlier appeared in Men Only 39-11, 1974-11 credited to Ed Alexander.

See here & following post.

[effCup]

A bit tangential to photogs., and yet (in my mind?) still slightly related--or maybe more related to model ids?--is the question of mag. publication lead times. I've no idea how far in advance magazines work[ed], but at least in the case of Gallery magazine we can see some possible clues. A model appearing in Gallery, 1990-06 called Paula, was in an advert from Gallery, 1989-11, and presumably also within that special issue publication from that date.

Originally Posted by billy707

Thanks to billy707 for the above scans.

I suppose it's possible that Paula previously appeared in an issue of Gallery from 1989--so far, fewer months have been scanned than not--but if not then that suggests a 6-8 month lead-time for at least some of the mag. content.

Gallery also ran a preview of 1990 models in 1990-01, here, and although I haven't cross-checked/compared all the models featured therein (again some months from 1990 have yet to be scanned) there's at least one model there in 1990-01 who subsequently appeared in 1990-05.

So, what's the point here? Well, it has a possible bearing in terms of some model ids in guessing roughly when a model may have been photographed. Obviously it has to have been prior to the publication, but if Gallery is at all indicative then it may have been as much as 6-8 months prior to publication. Of course, there are plenty of other examples of what we might term "late-publications", of models/material picked out of photogs'. back-catalogues. I suppose I might, unwittingly, have assumed mags. might have operated on a roughly 2-3 month publication lead-time, and maybe for some content or some other titles that remains so, but Gallery at least implies a rather longer lead-time.

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by effCup

I suppose I might, unwittingly, have assumed mags. might have operated on a roughly 2-3 month publication lead-time, and maybe for some content or some other titles that remains so, but Gallery at least implies a rather longer lead-time.

I think longer lead-times are more the rule than the exception. Reason is simply that sets commissioned for one mag are more the exception than the rule once you step away from the big mags of this world. More commonly, photographers [or: photographers' agencies] would simply have a portfolio of sets to choose from. Mag editors make their pick and some kind of exclusivity is agreed. Some sets could sit there unpicked for a long time, some were never picked.

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by Meini Again

But I can't think of a genuine reason for an artist ~ and they are artists ~ refusing praise or acknowledgement for their work.

I can think of several.

One is stigma. If you are the kind of photographer who dabbles in many areas then you may not want it known that amongst your work is porn, or S&M, etc.

A second is variability. Some mag editors would be reluctant to pick more than one set from one photographer for an issue, and if you are very prolific (like Monsieur Jacques) then this is a problem. Besides, you may use different names for different styles, developing separate brands.

A third is country of origin. Some mags like to give the appearance of being home-grown, some like to appear more international. So one day you publish as Heinz Krawinkel, the next as Nobuko Nakamura. I doubt this applies to photographers and their models, but anyway: in the movie industry this is often connected to tax breaks.

[effCup]

A possible aka for John Graham is Luchris | Rex USA, although it may instead simply be an agency/republisher, or a mag. production error? The below set of Lisa Remzi as Crystal in Genesis, 1992-10, thanks to Clem, is credited to Luchris | Rex USA in the pictorial but to John Graham on the toc.

Originally Posted by Clem

I have only just noticed the above so have not done a thorough comparison, but in terms of Luchris credits I currently know of:

• Sharon Hawthorne as Sharon in Ravers mag. (no issue/date known).
• Mica in Gallery, 1988-08
• Jayne in Best of Gallery, 1990-Spring
• Audra in Gallery, 1992-06
• a set with no model name in Interviu (Es) no.808, 1991-10-24

Also one of Helen Steed in Genesis, 1990-06 credited to John Paul Luchris.

Text searching e.g. the wonderclub website now simply produces garbage results.

[effCup]

Re. the bed frame with cane headboard and shiny bedding mentioned earlier here:

another sighting in Rustler 01-10, 1977, thanks to kudos2011.

Originally Posted by kudos2011

Unfortunately there's seemingly no photog. credits in Rustler, but the setting is rather similar to--but not quite the same as--one used by Ed Alexander--e.g. for Dominique Rupret:

Originally Posted by effCup