2012 (UTC)

By your last sentence, (20:59 30 April) it would seem that we are, perhaps, getting a little closer to nub of our discussion. The article is about his work. The fact that a very large amount of his original work, some 4000 negetives, has survived and been kept together in just two large collections for approximately 100 years is one of the main planks of his notability. The other plank is when and where he practiced. The subjects of his photographs, the people, their clothes, their floating and their static palaces etc. etc. is what is notable.  This collection is a unique, historical, visual record of a long dead era. It is not just a collection of photos of old boats. Kirk was uniquely positioned to photograph a distillation of an aspect of society. That aspect of society existed here and there, now and then, throughout this and other countries. But it came together for a short period each year at Cowes in what I have called a distillation. He did photograph it and his work has remained together, its existence, until recently, known only to a small group.

The trustees of the two collections feel, I am sure, that the photographs are too valuable to be published willy nilly on the internet.  In any event that would be impractical and was not my intention. My plan had been to try to make the collection's scope known. Not as an advertisment but as a dissemination of information.

As an analogy consider the article about a national collection described in page 10 of today's Guardian. The article describes the collection and claims or advocates its importance.  The Collection was started as the Fawcett Library.  Biographical details of Millicent Fawcett are not central to the theme of the article, an account and illustration of the contents of the collection is.   15:00, 1 May