We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
Eight AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER August, 1926
Jin Open Letter
(The following letter is self-explanatory. It represents the views of the American Society of Cinematographers on a subject that has been more or less perennial in its interest:)
On Location Care Tom Mix Company Glenwood Springs, Colo.
Editor, American Cinematographer,
Hollywood, California. Dear Mr. Goss:
My attention has been called to the published reports concerning a movement afoot in the East to unionize cinematographers. As the President of the American Society of Cinematographers, which represents the foremost cinematographers in the world, I believe it imperative at this time to make known the stand of the A. S. C. in this matter.
As you well know, we do not oppose unions as a matter of policy or principle. They are very necessary factors in some industries. In the motion picture industry itself, I don't suppose that there is any question that the unions have proved the salvation of the calling of the projectionists.
However necessary the union may be in other lines, it has no place among cinematographers at this time. I make this statement as based on the accumulated wisdom of cinematographers for all time past. The idea of a union for cinematographers has come up for discussion many times during the decade that the American Society of Cinematographers has been serving the industry. Each time all logic and reason have proven plainly the fallacy of such a move, Aside from the fact that we believe that cinematography is essentially an art and the cinematographer an artist, we regard his work as individual and distinctive to such a degree that it cannot be stereotyped into a set basis for a wage scale, nor do we think that it will permit of even an "equitable" arrangement in the form of a sliding scale or the like.
The foregoing represents the views of the American Society of Cinematographers. We do not for a moment take the position that the millennium has arrived in salaries or working conditions for cinematographers. But we believe that the continued recognition on the part of producers of the constructive work that the American Society of Cinematographers has been, and is doing, will do much more for the benefit of all concerned, than any union could. If and when this recognition should fail, then the time might be ripe to talk trade unions for cinematographers; but knowing what the A. S. C. is achieving for the present and what the magnitude of its plans for the future is, I do not think that such a time is imminent in the least.
Sincerely yours,
1219-20-21-22 Guaranty Building, DANIEL B. CLARK, President,
Hollywood, California. American Society of Cinematographers.