CAMERA
WORK
A PHOTOGRAPHIC QUARTERLY EDITED AND PUBLISHED BY ALFRED STIEGLITZ NEW YORK
NUMBER XVI MDCCCCVI
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk] CAMERA WORK: AN illustrated quarterly magazine devoted
to Photography. Published and edited by
Alfred Stieglitz. Associate Editors: Joseph T. Keiley, Dallett Fuguet, John Francis Strauss, J. B. Kerfoot. Subscription price Six Dollars per year. All subscriptions begin with current number. Back numbers sold only at single-copy price and upward. Price for single copy of this number at present, Four Dollars. The right to increase the price of subscription without notice is reserved. All copies are mailed at the risk of the subscriber; positively no duplicates. Registering and special packing, Fifty Cents extra. The management binds itself to no stated size or fixed number of illustrations, though subscribers may feel assured of receiving the full equivalent of their subscription. While inviting contributions upon any topic related to Photography, unavailable manuscript or photographs will not be returned unless so requested and accompanied by required return postage. Address all communications and remittances to Alfred Stieglitz, 1111 Madison Avenue, New York, U. S. A. The photogravures in this number by The Manhattan Photogravure Company, New York. The process plates by The Photochrome Engraving Company, New York. Arranged and printed at the printinghouse of The Fleming Press, New York. Entered as second-class matter December 23, 1902, at the post-office at New York, N. Y., under the act of Congress of March 3, 1879. This issue, No. 16, is dated October, 1906.
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk] PLATES
ROBERT DEMACHY.
I. Toucques Valley.
II. A Model.
III. Portrait—Mile. D.
IV. Street in Lisieux. V. Behind the Scenes.
VI. Study.
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk] MY EXPERIENCE OF THE RAWLINS OIL PROCESS.
[Mr. Demachy was kind enough to send us six of his experiments with the above process. These interesting prints will be on exhibition at the Photo-Secession Galleries during the autumn. In any attempt at reproduction, the specific character of the process would be entirely lost, and the reproductions would resemble those made from Mr. Demaehy’s gum-prints, which are to be seen in this number of Camera Work. — Editor.]
THE oil process is no novelty. It was invented by Poitevin at the same period as gum bichromate, in 1855, and revived by Mr. H. Rawlins, in 1904. A full description of the working of it is to be found in the October number of the Amateur Photographer (London), of that same year. The results were not all that could be desired. Since then, Mr. Rawlins has amended and simplified his methods. A few months ago I took the process up a second time, in order to give a fairly practical account of its working conditions in a book that the Paris Photo-Club has just brought out, and I have come to the conclusion that oil printing has come to stay, and that it is an extremely valuable addition to the actual processes used by pictorial photographers. In fact, I know of no other method that can allow such freedom of treatment. But the process does not seem to have been specially studied from this point of view—the main point, in my opinion—and the experiments I have been making on different papers, with different inks and varied degrees of exposure, may interest those amongst my readers for whom values and quality of medium have some importance. On the contrary, from the iC straight-print ” point of view, the process will prove tedious, and quite inferior to platinum. This as a warning.
Photographers are supposed to know that a thin layer of bichromated gelatine, when exposed to light, in contact with and under a glass negative, will shortly develop a brown image which, once plentifully washed and then dabbed with blotting-paper, will show7 a faint relief, and a curious difference of surface between the exposed and protected portions. These last will be damp and shiny, the others matt and relatively dry. This is the first stage of the Rawlins process. At the next one, photography steps out; it has nothing whatever to do with the rest of the operations, which are as follows: If a layer of greasy, colored ink is spread over the damp film, it will stick to the matt parts, and be expelled by the moist ones—a positive image will result. Not a crude black-and-white image, such as one would think probable, but one with the most delicate half-tones and the most perfect modeling. Spread the gelatine over a thick sheet of glass, and you will have a collotype plate; spread it over a sheet of paper, and you will have a Rawdins print. It is simplicity itself.
Collotype printing is used all the world over, so it is but natural that Mr. Rawlins should have chosen at first the collotype inking method—with the roller. But his thin gelatine film spread over wet and spongy paper was often more or less abraded by the repeated passage of the rubber or leather cylinder. And the fatty ink, sinking through the desintegrated gelatine, stained the underlying paper, and spoilt the picture—spoilt it irretrievably.
17
[pgbrk] Moreover, the mechanical action of the roller suppressed all possibility of interpretation on the part of the worker. The only difference between the Rawlins and the collotype process, was that the Rawlins print was unique, and the collotype print numberless—both were impersonal. But since Mr. Rawlins has used stenciling-brushes for inking, new horizons have opened. The picture may be inked locally, whole portions may be suppressed simply by non-inking, other portions darkened to any degree by repeated inking, and the layer of ink being extremely delicate, half-tones or high lights may be introduced at will by brushing the pigmented oil away.
Thus we find that the pictorial photographer has at his disposal a process which allows of absolute control over the values of his picture. He is now wholly responsible for their correctness, and can no longer argue that his negative gave it so, when some glaring fault of relation is pointed out to him. His negative will still be faulty—for he can not yet exercise sufficient control over his lens and his plate—but his positive image may be true, and we sincerely hope that it will become so, for sins against values are so common amongst the fraternity that one has come to doubt if photographers know that they are there. We have given a resume of the oil process ; it is necessary to describe more fully the methods of Mr. Rawlins, and the modifications introduced by myself in the course of several months’ experiments.
Mr. Rawlins has had a special paper made for his process. It is a good and reliable paper, but up to now the firm that supplies it has not been able to meet the demands made in France, and we have been obliged, much against our will, to shift for ourselves. After a few unsuccessful trials, I have found a brand of double transfer paper somewhat different from that of Mr. Rawlins, but which works well, stands the strain perfectly, and gives results that I find satisfactory. The best samples are the numbers 100, 103, 118 (matt engraving), 118 shiny, and 125, of the carbon double transfer papers T. I. C. (Horseshoe), of English manufacture. Other double transfer papers may give as good or even better results. No. 100 is white, thin, matt, and smooth; 103, of the same style; 118 is made matt, slightly grained, and also shiny—the last cream-colored; 125 is very thick, matt, and white. They are sold in rolls three metres long and 70 centimetres wide. The best way to avoid the nuisance of cutting out the sheets of necessary dimensions for use, is to saw the roller in a number of different sections of the requisite width. It is then easy to cut the length that is wanted off these reduced rolls, with a sharp penknife, using the roller itself as a guide or ruler.
The stenciling-brushes recommended by Mr. Rawlins are those that are used by painters on porcelain. They are made of bears’ hair. Mr. Rawlins uses the same sort of brushes (with flat or nearly flat surfaces) for inking and for dabbing. I have found that, for inking, the stenciling-brushes of the same nature, but of different form, with the hairs mounted in the shape of a stag’s foot, are immeasurably superior in delicacy and smoothness of action. They spread out fan-wise, and do not crush the pigment
18
[pgbrk] and gelatine together, as the straight ones do. They are made of all sizes, from one-third of an inch to an inch and a half wide. The largest size is most convenient for inking quickly and very slightly the whole surface of the gelatined sheet. One brush of this kind is sufficient, but it is necessary to get several of intermediate size — half an inch, and two-thirds of an inch, and a few smaller ones—with two or three straight-cut brushes. A series of hogs’-hair oil brushes of different size, and a few sable brushes, will come handy for removing the color in the high lights. My first experiments were made with Mr. Rawlins’ special ink — a thick, tacky sepia that works very well ; but subsequent trials have convinced me that complete liberty of interpretation can only be reached by having at one’s disposal several samples of ink of different thickness and composition. I have often found it necessary to use locally, on the same print, two or three different inks, of the same color, but of various degrees of tackiness, according to the degree of stickiness of different portions of the gelatine relief. One must have actually seen the contradictory effects of two samples of different ink on the same print, to believe that such completely opposite results can be caused by a minute difference in the proportions between oil and pigment.
It is next to impossible to know the composition of the different inks on the market. Each maker has his own formulas, and surrounds the mixing of his inks with the darkest mystery. I shall never forget the look on the foreman’s face, at Valette’s on the Quai Montebello, when I asked him what a certain precious sample he was showing me, was made of. The basis of engraving-ink is boiled linseed oil, that is certain; but Lorilleux, Valette, Lefranc, and two or three other well-known makers, have their own trade secrets, and their respective inks do not give the same effects. I suppose it is the same thing in New York. Mr. Stieglitz, great expert in printing matters, will know. American workers in oils should experiment first with Mr. Rawlins’ inks, then with four or five samples of engraving-, lithographic-, and common printing-inks—with and without siccative, and with and without thinning medium — and watch the results. The general rule is as follows : thick, tacky ink causes contrast; fluid ink, such as ordinary oils, flatness. It follows that an over-exposed print will give a good image with thick ink, and no image at all with fluid ink, for it will ink all over—and vice versa, of course.
This is why I insist on the necessity of having different samples of ink handy for use on the same print, for it may happen—and it often does happen—that a false value, for which the negative is responsible, has to be toned down ; in other words, that some portion of the picture has been, from an artist’s point of view, underexposed. It must be treated accordingly, and dabbed with fluid or extra-fluid ink, just as thick and tacky ink will have to be applied locally to portions that take too much pigment, and lose their modeling. Patient working with the same sort of ink chosen for the rest of the picture, will not produce equivalent results, as experience has proven. For extreme cases, I can recommend a tube of ordinary oil color and one of siccative—to be used sparingly.
19
[pgbrk] I have quite abandoned Mr. Rawlins’ method of sensitizing (immersion in a 10-per-cent. acid bath of potassium bichromate). The gelatine takes hours to dry ; the paper, soaked right through with chromic solution, requires a long and thorough washing; and in summer, the gelatine, unless the bath is cooled down with ice, will become dangerously soft. Instead of
this I have adopted the following method :
Make a stock solution of:
Water........................100 cubic centimetres.
Ammonium bichromate . . 5 grammes.
Carbonate of soda . . . 0.5 cubic centimetres.
For use, take 5 cubic centimetres of this solution, and add 10 cubic centi-
metres of alcohol of 90 degrees. Pin your gelatine paper on a sheet of thick blotter fixed to a drawing-board, and brush the gelatine side of paper right and left with a two-inch wide flat brush of hog’s-hair dipped in the alcoholic solution. Fifteen cubic centimetres will cover five whole plate sheets. A few parallel lines may remain on the film just after sensitizing, but they will disappear in the course of drying. Desiccation will be completed in fifteen minutes at the most, a formidable gain of time on the previous method. Also, the gelatine having alone absorbed the sensitizing solution, the elimination of the chromic salts will be much easier than when both gelatine and paper have been impregnated. After a few minutes’ washing, the yellow tint of the bichromate will have disappeared, after which half-an-hour’s soaking in cool water or five minutes in tepid water will be sufficient for the unexposed parts of the gelatine to absorb the necessary quantity of water. The print may be pigmented immediately, or hung up to dry, and inked at some later period. In this case it will require, of course, a preliminary soaking, rather more prolonged than the first one, for gelatine that has dried once will be tougher than usual.
Alcohol and ammonium bichromate sensitized papers print very quickly. A transparent negative of the kind that bromide workers would call thin, will not require more than two-and-a-half minutes’ exposure in diffused light on a bright summer’s day—five or six minutes in winter. This for No. 100 double transfer Horseshoe paper, the coating of which is thin. No. 125 will require, for an opposite reason, double the exposure. But on no account must the opacities of the negative be printed through ; in all cases no details, or only faint details, should appear in the high lights. A few intelligently conducted trials with the same negative will soon give one complete control over the printing operations, so much so that one will soon lose the habit of opening the printing-frame to watch the results ; a glance at the negative will be enough to judge beforehand the proper length of the exposure.
We already know that the picture we are going to build up will be made by the difference of adhesion of fatty inks on swollen or retracted gelatine. Plain reasoning will demonstrate by simple deduction that the gelatine surface of our print must be damp, and that it must be kept so
20
[pgbrk] during the whole period of pigmenting, or it would take the ink on its whole surface ; also that it must not be actually wet, because the presence of even a very thin layer of water over the insoluble parts would destroy the difference of texture between them and the swollen portions of the film. These two important conditions may be fulfilled by gently pressing a sheet of fluffless blotting-paper over the gelatine side of print, until every apparent drop of water has been sucked up, and by using as a desk on which the print will be placed during development, a thick pad of soaking wet blotting-paper supported by a sheet of strong glass, which we will prop up at a convenient angle on a support of some sort. This developing-desk or easel must be placed in the full light of a window, the light falling sideways on the print, so as to avoid disturbing reflections. The operator is comfortably seated, with his palettes on one side, and his brushes handy on the other. He will now choose his inks according to the degree of exposure he has given, and to the effect he is striving after; bearing in mind that tacky ink will produce grain and contrast, fluid ink smoothness and flatness.
The ink may be taken up copiously at the end of the development, when things are clear, and the general effect largely indicated, but the initial inking should be faint. So the ink that we will start with will have to be spread over the palette—a slab of porcelain, ground-glass, or ordinary glass —in a very thin and equal layer, always superior in diameter to that of the brush that is going to be used, or else the hairs will not be uniformly charged with pigment. Daub the stag’s-foot stenciling-brush five or six times over the thin layer of ink, and transfer the pigment to the print with rapid and light touches., holding the brush nearly perpendicular to the print, so that the wedge-shaped point—which must be kept uppermost—touches the print first, and opens out as you press downward. As to where you will begin your inking, that is a matter of personal taste. As a rule, a landscape may be inked all over faintly, and worked up locally afterward; but for portraits I prefer to ink the face first—right up to what I intend to keep as a definite value ; then I build up the surroundings to harmonize with the face value, taking great care never to introduce an accent as strong, or, worse even, stronger than those I have put in the face and figure. This system has the advantage of showing clear, decisive work in the face, which is, of course, the center of interest in a portrait.
For it is the same with the oil process as with water-colors or oil, the best bit is the one that has been painted with a quick and sure touch. I do not believe in messing over a face, adding color, and taking it away. I have done it, of course; but the result has never been equal to what I have accomplished with decisive and quick work. On the contrary, one may not hasten over backgrounds, for it is the value of the surroundings, and the localization of the dark and light spots, that will make or mar a picture. It is the same in a landscape : after having very faintly developed the whole of the picture, choose your strongest spot, the one intended to catch and retain the eye, and work the rest up as a setting to that particular value; but do not dab haphazard all over your picture, or you will lose the thread of your
21
[pgbrk] argument, and end in pure drivel. Have you ever seen an expert ink a collotype plate? To the eye of the uninitiated the action of the roller appears to be identical when its passage adds color or removes it. The experience of the beginner in oils is somewhat similar. The preliminary inking works quite smoothly, but after a time the brush seems to remove the pigment as fast as it is put on. Yet, after a few trials, one gets to recognize the feel of the springy motion that clears the spot, and of the lingering, insinuating touch that darkens it. Here is a rule that may be of use to the beginner: rapid and brusque action of the brush, be it perpendicular or horizontal, will remove color from all slightly-inked parts, and leave unchanged all parts more heavily covered; it will produce contrast.
The hopping action, described by Mr. Rawlins, is founded on this peculiarity. It consists in holding a straight-cut stenciling-brush between the thumb and the two first fingers, perpendicularly to the print, which must then lie flat on the table, and in letting the brush fall on the pigmented surface, and bounce up again. It is caught as it bounces, and the movement is repeated over and over again. This is an excellent dodge for correcting any error in pigmenting—over-pigmenting in fact; but I believe that it is wiser to try and get the proper result by inking progressively, than by forcibly removing pigment that has no right to be where it is. Experience will show that a picture with reserved whites looks infinitely better than one the whites of which have been produced by removal. But in the darker portions of the print, the use of the hopping action is often a necessity. There are half-tones, and also details in certain shadows, that it may not be possible to reserve. They will have to be inked over, and then picked out in the manner described above.
To resume, the result of my experiments in pigmenting seems to show that the less a print is worked upon, the better it will be. But, according to the scheme of tone adopted, the minimum of work may be five minutes in one case and an hour in another. What the worker in oils must bear in mind is that he has every advantage in trying to get his effect by the simplest means.
Mr. Rawlins mentions turpentine as the best solvent to use for removing the pigment down to the gelatine. I much prefer plain water. Absolutely white accents can be produced with a hog’s-hair or sable brush (according to the thickness of the layer of pigment), dipped in cold or lukewarm water. And the action is thus limited to the actual portions that are submitted to friction—while turpentine or high-grade benzine will always dissolve more or less of the adjoining pigment, and, however carefully dabbed away, will still change the normal thickness of the fresh pigment.
If you want to drive away every trace of pigment from the surface of your print, you can do it with a soft sponge, and cold, or slightly tepid, water, when the pigment has not been heavily applied ; but in the case of a thickly-inked print, you will have to use automobile naphtha, which has the advantage of drying very quickly. Of course, the print should be soaked again before pigmenting, and it is safer to let it dry totally before soaking it
22
[pgbrk] anew, to avoid unequal swelling of the gelatine. Automobile naphtha will also come handy for the cleansing of the brushes, a messy, but all-important operation, which must be performed carefully and completely, before the ink collected on the hairs has had time to dry — at a safe distance from lamp or candle, of course.
Oil prints take a long time to harden, and even to dry, unless they are very slightly inked, and up to now, I have not been able to make their surface scratch-proof. I have tried different kinds of varnish, but the really efficient ones show too much for my taste. The best results have been given by Soehnee’s varnish for water-colors, thinned down to one-third of its normal strength with alcohol of 90° ; even this is not entirely satisfactory. There is something to be done in that direction, as well as in several others, for though the process is not new, it has never yet 'been given a fair trial.
I sincerely hope that it will be taken up seriously by the American school of pictorialists, who will, I am sure, study it from one point of view only, and direct its evolution toward the proper goal. No photographic process exists that can serve as an apprenticeship to the Rawlins process. It is purely monochrome painting on somebody else’s drawing — not photography— and the painter’s rules must be followed implicitly, and with proper knowledge, or disaster will follow. Robert Demachy.
23
[pgbrk] PLATES
C. PUYO.
I. Montmartre.
II. The Straw Hat.
III. Nude—Against the Light.
ROBERT DEMACHY.
IV. The Seine at Clichy.
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk] THE RECENT EXHIBITIONS—SOME IMPRESSIONS.
AT The Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession the blinds have been drawn down on its first season of exhibitions. One has followed another during the past months with clock-work precision, placing in review examples of French, English, German, Austrian, and American prints. The enterprise has been amply justified, both by the quality of the exhibitions, and by the interest they have awakened in the public. As one of the latter, rather than in a capacity of critic, I have been asked to summarize my impressions; general ones, gathered more or less at random — an after-glance toward the display as a whole, rather than a recollection of individual prints.
Well, first of all, a tribute to the manner of showing. I have never seen an exhibition presented with so discreet a taste, even by the Viennese and Germans, who are adepts at such ensembles. The management, in this instance, reserving to itself the privilege of showing what, when, and how it chose, was in the unusual position of having nothing to consult except its own sense of fitness. It could avoid superfluity, and exclude discord. But the secret of its discretion — and it is worth making a note of—consisted in adopting the photographic print itself as the unit of the scheme of arrangement. This sounds obvious enough, but observe the result of conforming to it logically.
For the present I assume, what I will later discuss more fully, that a photographic print has certain characteristics in common with etchings and engravings. It is another version of black and white ; can not without loss of quality be indefinitely enlarged; is, indeed, most effective when it does not exceed some thirteen by seventeen inches; and, in its character of being small and choice, is out of place in a crowd. Now, if this is so of the unit, clearly the multiple of it—the ensemble — should be characterized also by choiceness, reticence, and an absence of crush. It is so in the Little Galleries.
Each of the three rooms is small and low; the walls covered with some material that leaves an impression of pearly gray, or grayish grass; a shelf running round to mark the “line,” and below it curtains of a slightly lower tone than that of the walls; here and there the accent of a piece of Japanese pottery, a flowering spray, a morsel of sculpture — objects that lend spots of piquancy to an arrangement which eludes your observation, and keeps modestly in the background. Against it, of course in a single row, the prints were hung at wide intervals, so that, as you examined each, it was quietly detached from all its neighbors; you saw it secluded in an amplitude of delicately neutral margin. However, the value of such detachment was not realized for the first time here; it is, in fact, what every intelligent hanging-committee, if allowed a free hand, would attempt. Recently, however, I have seen a massed exhibition of the same prints in three galleries of the Pennsylvania Academy. Here again they were detached on walls hung with quiet drapery. But the rooms were lofty and comparatively large, and one felt that in the vacancy individual prints did not adequately find themselves,
33
[pgbrk] and that the total effect was somewhat tame and barren. One came away convinced that photographic prints, as well as etchings and engravings, have not the decorative assertion that is necessary to clothe large spaces, but should be seen in groups, either in little rooms, or in larger ones divided into alcoves. Further, that if you desire to add a final touch to the decorative ensemble — and I believe every exhibition of photographs needs it — the means employed should not be flat ornament upon the walls, but sprightly bits of plastic decoration to relieve the monotonous suggestion of prevailing flatness.
I ventured just now to assume that there is a virtue in a print being rather small than big. Examples of the latter were shown by the Hofmeisters, of Hamburg, and Kuhn, of Innsbruck, prints approximating twenty by thirty inches; while Henneberg, of Vienna, and Steichen, of New York were represented by some prints considerably smaller than these, yet much above the average size. These last, indeed, about corresponded to the dimensions tentatively suggested above. It would be foolish to attempt any hard-and-fast limit as to size, yet it is a pretty safe proposition that in a picture the cloth should be cut to the coat, and not the coat to the cloth; in a word, that the size should be regulated according to the medium’s capacity of filling the space with interest. Now, Steichen, using the gum-method, and making several successive printings, obtains an extraordinary richness in the blacks, and vivacity in the lights, and Henneberg, in his Villa Falconieri, attains to corresponding effects. In each case the feeling and the handling alike are characterized by bigness, and justify a print above the average. But I can
not imagine that a further enlargement would be acceptable. The very richness of the black is obtained at the expense of subtlety, and the black itself, except over small areas, is not intrinsically interesting.
The prints by the Hofmeisters and Kuhn naturally showed to better advantage in a larger room; they may be regarded, I suppose, as devised for “gallery” exhibitions. Like the display-canvases in the Salon, they compel attention; but I question if, from an artistic standpoint, they maintain it. That is a pretty satisfactory proposition of Whistler’s — “That the space to be covered should always be in proper relation to the means used for covering it;” and it seemed to me that these landscapes negatively proved it. Presumably they had been enlarged from smaller negatives, and in the process the detail had lost its character, and become reduced to unmeaning blurs, while such suggestion of atmosphere and light as might have originally appeared in the plate had been stretched to practical extinction. In common speech, there was not enough of them to go around. If this be correct, it is in order to repeat another of the Whistlerian propositions — “ That all attempts to overstep the limits insisted on by such proportions are inartistic thoroughly, and tend to reveal the paucity of the means used, instead of concealing the same, as required by art in its refinement.” And he continues with another proposition, which I quote, not with any thought in my mind of the particular artists under view, whom I regard in this connection as experimenters having courage to embark on a larger sea in a spirit of adventure, but because its extravagance of statement helps to emphasize
34
[pgbrk] the issue. “That the huge plate”—he is speaking, of course, of etchings— “therefore, is an offense; its undertaking an unbecoming display of determination and ignorance; its accomplishment a triumph of unthinking earnestness and uncontrollable energy, endowments of the ‘duffer’.”
Yet, without subscribing to these conclusions of contempt, one may be very conscious of their general applicability to photographs. Personally — and I have been asked for my impressions — I doubt if any large print can be satisfactory, unless it is a reproduction of a painting. In these the representation of the actual brushwork draws the large surface, as it were, into a net of interest. But your honest photograph — the straight kind — does not permit of this analyzed individuality; it requires, on the contrary, a more generalized and uniform treatment, in which the individuality is synthetized; broadly, and at times a little brutally, under Steichen’s handling; subtly under that of White, and in an example like The Model, by Puyo. As between White and Steichen, who, as far as I know, are the best exponents, respectively, of subtlety and breadth, there need be no invidious comparison. Each is sincerely following his temperament, and is able in expressing it. Yet, in studying these conflicting qualities as they diversely appear and reappear in photography, I find myself compelled to the conclusion that subtlety is the intrinsic domain of the photographer. For he is primarily occupied with that manifestation of nature which is at once the most subtle and vital—light. It is with this also that the most advanced of modern painters are concerned; but while they, with the old-fashioned, comparatively clumsy implements of brushes and pigments, are endeavoring to represent this volatile, evanescent thing, the photographer has actually entered into copartnership with it, and is assisted by the latest discoveries of modern chemistry. Spread before him is a field of experiment and adventure, of which, as yet, it is probable that he has cultivated but the fringe.
If one accepts this view of subtlety being the photographer’s preeminent domain, we shall be disposed to a preference for the smaller print, from the four corners of which, as it were, may be spun a gossamer web of light and shade. We can not imagine ourselves desiring a Brobdingnagian gossamer, and are pretty sure that if it were attempted something would impair its delicate completeness.
Again, the purpose of the artist, apart from satisfying his own desire of expression, is to convey an impression to the imagination of others, and it is jejune to try and stir the imagination deliberately by bigness. An imagination so stirred is likely to be one that an artist, at any rate of pictures, should be prouder to leave unmoved. There is no doubt that a tactful judgment discovers an absolute relation between subject and size — that there is a point in the progression of inches when the requirements of the composition are exactly fitted — less would be inadequate, more, an impertinence. So, if alone on this score, I should think a photographer who works thinkingly, mentally conceiving his composition before he exposes the plate, must from the start take this question of size into consideration, and be chary of enlargements and reductions. Meanwhile, to record my own impression, I
35
[pgbrk] have no hesitation in saying that the smaller rather than the larger print is, as a rule, most full of meat for the imagination. It is when the effect is compressed that the individuality of treatment is felt most strongly through and through it, and that there is least risk of the medium’s characteristic virtue appearing as a weakness ; of the quality of transparence, which it shares with etching, and engraving, and pure water-color, being strained to tenuousness.
Many experiments in color were sprinkled through the exhibition, some of them being attempts to approximate to the hues of nature, others only a variation upon the usual convention of the black and white or brown and white. When the aim had been simply to enrich the black or brown by the addition of another color, the effect was often satisfactory. But several of the landscapes were printed in blue, which seems to me a futile affectation of originality. The translation of the hues of nature into the convention of black, or brown and white, is one to which we are accustomed through the associated experience of other black-and-white work. It needs but a little imagination for the conventional colors to resolve themselves into the natural. But the blue is not assisted by any habit of association; it raises at once the issue that it is color, and, not representing the colors of nature, it strikes one as a solecism, and accordingly offends. As to the actual attempts to obtain by several negatives, exposed through separate colored screens, a composite print approximating nature’s hues, I suppose to anyone possessed of chemical understanding, they might be of considerable interest. Judged, however, by the bare standard of artistic result, they, as yet, have little. None of these prints began to suggest the illusion that a painter can achieve. The color, such as it was, seemed to lack the lucidity of painting, and to clog and muddify the transparence of photography.
In a word, these experiments seem rather on a par with the colored mezzotint. For the present, at any rate, one’s impression is that any color in a photograph, except to enrich the convention of black and white or brown and white (preferably the former), is a quality not even to be desired.
Such opportunity as the exhibitions permitted of comparing the foreign and home work seemed to leave a wide margin in favor of the latter. It struck me as being more consistently serious. While the foreign was enlivened by a few instances of happy distinction, such as the clever composition, characteristically French, in some prints by Demachy and Puyo, it left a general impression on one’s mind of lack of conviction, fixed purpose, and technical sincerity. While, very properly, a spirit of experiment was apparent throughout these exhibitions, it is regulated in the American work, taken as a whole, possibly by a fuller appreciation of the range of pictorial qualities, and certainly by a fuller grasp of the possibilities of the medium itself. Thus, while the foreign work suggests often a running after rather irrelevant effects, echoes of those recalled in other mediums or suggested by a comparatively aimless desire to test what can be accomplished, the American photographer appears to have more thoroughly digested the salient qualities of pictorial expression, to have assimilated the general knowledge for his particular medium, and then, relying upon the hints and suggestions of
36
[pgbrk] the latter, to be, each according to his temperament, pursuing definitely some line of progress. Like the best of our painters, the younger men who entered into the fruits of other men’s fighting, they are as little affected by the banality of anecdotal and merely imitative art as they are by the poison of any consciousness of art for art’s sake. They are not afraid of genre subjects, though they instinctively avoid the elaborate put-together picture; but, whatever they do, try to make their work a basis for the display of qualities of tone, and light, and atmosphere, the ones in which the merit of photography is most characteristically exhibited. Nor are they wanting in the ingenuities of composition — that modern form of it learned from the Japanese, in which formality has given place to a cunningly controlled irregularity.
There was a time when, perhaps, these same men and women were consciously emulating the actual effects of painting. Now, however, they have mastered the general principles, and are applying them single-heartedly in accordance with the suggestion of the photographic medium. Working on this basis, at once simple and effectual, they have made steady progress in developing, not only the resources of the medium, but their own individuality. Their work, to my thinking, presents a serious and consistent advance, compared with which, the foreign work, as a whole, suggests rather a variety of guerrilla expeditions.
To this I must admit at least one exception. The Cathedral Studies, by Frederick H. Evans, certainly represent deliberate and sustained effort. I have heard that Mr. Shaw recognizes in them the high-water mark of photography. It seems a little rash at this state of the game to venture upon any delimitation of the tidal possibilities of photography; but when, if ever, it is discovered, I am disposed to think it will not be found to have stopped at Mr. Evans’s work. The latter seems to bear about the same relation to photographic art that Mr. Haig’s etched prints of cathedrals bear to the art of etching. They are skilful and artistic records of fact, but not fully representative of the art, considered as an art.
The exhibitions at the Little Galleries have attracted a good deal of outside interest. Among the visitors has been at least one, to my knowledge, who has now supplemented a cultivated taste for Whistler’s etchings, with one for collecting photographic prints. Not a few painters have looked in, and expressed a more or less surprised approval; some appear to have gone away quite favorably impressed. On the other hand, one or two critics have recorded a dissentient voice. It is the old cuckoo-cry, that photography can’t be art. In some cases, I suspect, it is the result of a sprightly indifference to everything except consistency to an opinion, assumed when the art in photography was less apparent; a light-hearted reasoning from old theories rather than new phenomena. In other cases, however, it is a product of ignorance. A man who has made no effort to learn with reasonable thoroughness what modern photography is accomplishing, will venture from examination of a few prints to make a snap judgment of the whole range of photographic possibilities. Whether art or not art, is this criticism ?
Charles H. Caffin.
37
[pgbrk] THE A B C OF PHOTOGRAPHY.
H stands for Hypo, a salt Jesuitical — Apparently lamb-like, but subtly mephitical.
If posterity’s going To look at your showing,
Believe me, you can not be too hypo-critical.
I ’s the Impressionist. Gee !
What a glorious world this must be
When your eyes don’t quite track,
And when everything black Is all purple and pink filigree !
J is Judge Lynch, to whose court we assign The judging of niggers and prints. I opine That you’ll readily know,
When he’s helped hang a show,
By the number of dead ones you see on the line.
K is the Kodaker spry,
From whose interrogative eye
Gleams the rage of the glutton,
As, finger on button,
He watches his chance to let fly.
L is the Landscape immense,
With a tree, and three cows, and a fence,
Which is l' art à l’Anglais.
Why — but then I dare say That I’m temperamentally dense !
M is the Model, whose beauty To record is a positive duty ;
For her torso and thigh Are a dream. But my, my !
Her face is best kept on the Q. T.
N is a Nuance, a brand-new affair About half-way betwixt and between a split hair. I don’t think I’ve heard Who invented the word,
But his royalties ought to be mounting for fair.
J. B. Kerfoot.
38
[pgbrk] PLATES
RENÉE LE BÈGUE. I. Study.
II. Study.
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk] THE PHOTO-SECESSION EXHIBITION AT THE PENNSYLVANIA ACADEMY OF FINE ARTS — ITS PLACE AND SIGNIFICANCE IN THE PROGRESS OF PICTORIAL PHOTOGRAPHY.
ONLY after the smoke of battle has cleared away and the din and clamor of conflict have trembled into silence can adequate idea be gathered of real results. ’Tis then that forces, readjusting themselves to the requirements of conditions, seek to attain the logic of their purpose, along lines of least resistance.
Chaos evolving into inevitable order and law, often gropes blindly before reaching the right path. Too often through sheer ignorance, it involves itself in unnecessary travail and defeat—like the ant that must climb over rather than go around the obstacles in its path.
Responding to impelling instinct it must go forward—whither, it does not know.
Such, invariably, is the character of popular progress. Instinct compels advance; fear, born of ignorance, holds it back. And, of all retarding forces, fear of ridicule is the most powerful. With the majority, ridicule is more persuasive than the force of logic or canon. And ’tis well so, for, while ridicule has often killed what was of rare but fragile beauty and promise, it has been the Spartan test of the virile, of what is timely, well-balanced, and possessed of the robustness of Life. What it has not killed it has strengthened, developing the latent force, by pruning what sapped the strength. Often those who ridicule most bitterly are at heart in sympathy with those they ridicule, and are eventually to be found in their ranks. They are impelled to ridicule because they honestly fail to understand; or regarding the cause attacked lightly or without thought, because they would win reputation by ridiculing recognized persons or standards. At conflict with those who hold back are those who strive forward to some definite end, too full of the enthusiasm of conviction and of the correctness and desirability of their purpose to fear the force of ridicule. Them it but tempers, trains, and makes clearer of vision; teaches and corrects their weakness without weakening their strength of purpose; strengthens the lights, and supplies the shadows necessary to show by very contrast the brightness of Light. It is the shades and shadows that go to making the picture. Without them all would be monotony. Lacking the aid of the one, the other could not be made apparent. So, without ridicule and opposition, there would be no contest. Without contest, no progress.
The movement for the recognition of photography as a means of original pictorial expression has been not lacking of conflict, of opposition, of ridicule and misrepresentation, of Lights and Shadows. As so often happens, many of those engaged in the conflict had the same end in view. Others, fearing radical change, that would materially affect their professional standing, with the success of the movement, opposed its progress with the
45
[pgbrk] vigor that is born of the instinct of self-preservation. Others again saw in the conflict that was waging opportunity of personal advancement, and so agitated vigorously toward that end. Others again, from pure love of conflict, attached themselves to one party or the other, without possessing any pronounced convictions either way. While others still, sought convictions through conflict. Some, few in number, be it said to the credit of the photographic world, and they, as a rule, not properly of that world, professed and recorded convictions of one sort, till they felt higher pay could be gotten for their MSS., by advocating the opposite. So the course of the conflict was bedimmed—confused—and, to the casual observer, often extremely hard to follow. The really essential facts of progress and accomplishment were, on the one hand, often either not known or but imperfectly so, to those who most loudly discussed the subject; or on the other, being known, not infrequently ignored through indifference or lack of understanding of their real trend and significance; or else deliberately misrepresented or suppressed from motives of idle mischief or sheer malice.
There were in consequence differences of every sort and in all quarters. With its beginnings photography had a few dignified organizations, usually of savants, for the promotion of its progress. When popularized and brought within reach of nearly everyone, through being made comparatively inexpensive, and so simplified that but small knowledge of any sort was required to be able to produce photographs, there sprang into existence, all over the country, little clubs of those who had cameras. The majority of their numbers had neither scientific nor artistic training. With most, it was a mere pastime, that gave birth to the ambition to “make pictures.” Soon there were small exhibitions here and there that faithfully reflected the crude beginnings of the movement. As the idea began to take more definite shape, clubs began to have their factions. Magazines sprang up, a few representative ones of general interest, a whole army of small fry each devoted to the theories, party policy, or exploitation of their particular following. Then began to simmer the question—what really constituted a picture. This led to innumerable quarrels, which, as a consequence, drew together those having the most advanced and definite ideas upon the subject. Their efforts evolved what were known as the Joint Exhibitions, held annually alternately in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston from 1884 to 1894. These began well, but in time, with the majority, their larger purpose was subordinated to the desire for medal and riband, or place-winning. It soon became evident to the few who, understandingly, were striving for the advancement of photography as a picture-making medium, that the Joint Exhibitions had gotten into a rut that made further progress, through their assistance, impossible. The Exhibitions had ceased not alone to forward the movement, but were creating a condition and unsound standards that held back those who urged on, and ignoring their warnings, were rapidly degenerating the whole movement.
46
[pgbrk] In 1894 Alfred Stieglitz, one of the chief prize-winners at these exhibitions, and at the time editor of the American Amateur Photographer, wrote:
We Americans can not afford to stand still; we have the best of material among us, hidden in many cases; let us bring it out. Let us make up our minds that we are equal to the occasion, and prove to the photographic world at large that we are awake, and interested in 'the progress of picture photography. Abolish these Joint Exhibitions, which have done their work and served their purpose, and let us start afresh with an Annual Photographic Salon, to be run on the strictest lines. Abolish medals and prizes; the acceptance and hanging of a picture should be the honor. There is no better instructor than public exhibitions.
In 1895 the Joint Exhibitions were discontinued, followed by widespread dissension.
In 1896, the aspirations of those striving for the advancement of the movement were voiced in the following language by the founder of Camera Work:
Photographic exhibitions in other countries are gradually decreasing in number, and greatly increasing in quality. Medals are being abolished in high-class exhibitions, and only the very best work hung. Let us hope that the United States will soon show the world the finest collection of pictorial photographic work ever seen, if only to make up for its former deficiencies and backwardness.
And in 1897 he established Camera Notes in the interest of the pictorial photographic cause, and to forward the movement initiated abroad, and attempted to be carried on here, through the instrumentality of these Joint Exhibitions. Two years later were inaugurated the Philadelphia Salons, national as to their submitted pictures, international by invitation, the warring forces of the past binding themselves by spoken and written pledge to their support. The great army of amateur and professional photographers who had been reveling in, and winning medals and honors from, their various local exhibitions, failing to understand the real purpose and standards of the Philadelphia Salon, and vastly disappointed at having their elsewhere-successful “masterpieces” turned down at Philadelphia, waxed bitter and abusive. With the termination of the Third Salon, war again broke out with even greater fury. The Philadelphia Society, the oldest and most conservative in the country, was torn to its center by the conflict. The reactionaries, some of them pledged to the policy of the Salons as held, threw over that policy to which the Society was pledged. A fourth exhibition was inaugurated on lines absolutely in conflict with those of the previous years’ “broad” lines,* that disestablished all recognized standards, sacrificed all that had been gained, deprived the Philadelphia Society of the confidence and trust of all those who had held faith in its past pledges, and shut out photography from the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, and threw the American photographic world once more into turmoil and confusion, with the result that the fourth Philadelphia exhibition marked the decline and fall of the Philadelphia Salons.
* For history of the Salon movement see Camera Notes, Vol. II, No. 3 : The Philadelphia Salon—Its Origin and Influence; Vol. III, No. 3 : The Salon—Its Purpose, Character, and Lesson ; Vol. IV, No. 3 : The Salon—Its Place, Pictures, Critics, and
Prospects; Vol. V, No. 4: The Decline and Fall of the Philadelphia Salon. See Photo-Times Almanac, 1901, Photography and
Progress; Photograms of Year, 1899 and 1900, The American School.
47
[pgbrk] In reviewing the Third Philadelphia Salon, Camera Notes had warned the Philadelphia Photographic Society and the Academy of Fine Arts what would be the result did they violate their pledges to the photo-pictorialists, and abandon established standards. Commenting on the Exhibition of 1901, Camera Notes had closed its review of the situation with these words:
The pictorial photographers of the country will now form their own organization, and hold their own exhibitions where the best interests of pictorial photography will be more faithfully guarded and consistently served.
Following the decline and fall of the Philadelphia Salon, came increased bitter dissension throughout the American photographic world. The Philadelphia Photographic Society was torn by conflict, and lost some of its oldest and most valued members. The New York organization also felt the force of the storm. An adverse administration having been elected, the founder and editors of Camera Notes, from sense of justice to that administration and sense of self-respect, refused longer to edit and publish a magazine whose policy was distinctly at variance with the organization of which it was nominally the official organ. They retired with the issuance of Vol. VI, No. 1, of that publication. With No. 4 of the same volume that magazine died. The opposition, ever ready with objection, seemed unwilling or unable to take up the work from which it endeavored to drive others. Out of all this chaos grew the Secession, a body composed of those who believed in, and had been connected with, the photographic pictorial movement, who had well-defined ideas on the subject. Banded together to carry out those ideas as one man, they were pledged to loyalty to the movement and to each other, and to participate in no quarrel. Petty quarrels had been the bane of photographic progress—had time and again turned victory to defeat, brought earnest labor to sterile results, and engendered harmful ill-feeling and retrogressive discouraging chaos. Only by making such differences and conditions impossible could final attainment of success be hoped. Every person who came into the Secession did so with full understanding of its purpose and tenets, and was pledged to live up to both. Those who did not feel free to do this were not wanted in the organization, where unity of purpose and harmony of action were the governing laws. This did not mean that the work of outsiders, where up to standard, was not wanted. The contrary was the case. One of the Secession’s objects was to exploit all representative work, whether by friend or foe, and the catalogues of all its leading exhibitions show names not enrolled with the Secession. It was its policy to put before the picture-loving public compact shows of the very best examples to be had of photography as a picture-making medium, and in such shape and manner as to excite attention and respect.
It was founded February 17, 1902. Its first exhibition was at the National Arts Club, on the invitation of that organization, in March of the same year. In that exhibition were thirty-two exhibitors, at least half of whom were not members of the Secession.
[pgbrk] If success be a criterion, the correctness of the policy of the Photo-Secession at once became apparent in the immediate and convincing character of the results.
Collections of selected American prints were sent abroad by invitation on the strength of the showing of the National Arts Club. Not only did the American work win universal attention, but was enthusiastically conceded to be in the front rank of the pictorial photographic work of the world, and at Turin and elsewhere was awarded premier position among the national work shown. And, furthermore, its evident seriousness of purpose and convincing results won in many places serious consideration by the public and by the management of art institutions, of the claims of pictorial photography, a matter of far greater importance to the Secession. In Die Photographische Kunst for 1905, Ernst Schul recites what appears to have been the universal impression made by the American work abroad:
It is a mark of maturity in them that they steer entirely clear of exaggeration, pretension, and modern affectations. They are the most modern of all, yet the most sure and reposeful. They are the most advanced, yet they have prepared their position with circumspection, and they reach a consciously selected goal with the calm of perfect deliberation, like the hunter who, with a cool and deadly aim, reaches his prey.
They do not overstep their limits, but seek the highest possible perfection within their clearly-defined sphere. They do not reach out for the impossible, the forbidden, and avoid every insincere pose. Being of a practical bend, they exploit the possibilities of their technique, thus producing a rare harmony between their aspirations and their attainments. At every step we feel that they have practiced long and hard; their development has passed through a number of stages; and their work is entirely free from the faults of the beginner’s impatience.
When the announcement of the formation of the Secession was made public, it was received in many quarters rather derisively. But when successes here and abroad began to crown its earliest labors, the attitude changed to one of expectant interest. Finally, when all was ready, the Little Galleries were opened. The rooms were gotten up in the simplest possible manner, and a series of exhibitions put on the walls displaying numerous original examples of the best work of the world. Before opening the Little Galleries, the Secession, as has been seen, had tested its strength by exhibitions in the United States and abroad. As an organization, it had kept apart from all entanglements with other organizations. Effort was repeatedly made to affiliate it with other organizations, or to draw it into controversy. Experience had taught it the lesson of the safeness of standing alone. Into controversy or politics it always declined to enter. On the other hand, it opposed no organization or individual, and where good work appeared, at once gave it recognition, and sought to secure it for its own exhibitions. The exhibitions displayed in the Little Galleries, covered European as well as American work. All of the exhibitions attracted widespread and serious attention, not alone from the photographers, but from the art-loving public, the editors of some of the leading art magazines, and some of the leading painters of the city. During the last five months of this year’s season, the galleries were visited in all by something over 15,000 people. Among those visitors came the manager of the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, which, having helped
49
[pgbrk] to initiate the Salon movement in Philadelphia in 1898, had, after four years, practically closed its doors on the photographers and their claims.
Under his progressive management the Philadelphia Academy has become one of the foremost and up-to-date institutions of art in the United States. One of the policies of the Academy was to place before its patrons examples of all the various media of art expression. During the season there had been international exhibitions of exceptional quality of painting in oil, in water-color, in pastel, of sculpture, of etching, of engraving, of Woodcuts, of lithographs.
Study of the Secession exhibitions convinced the manager of the Philadelphia Academy of the propriety and desirability of adding to the Academy’s series of exhibitions one of representative photographic pictures, arranged by the Photo-Secession. The Secession was to make its own selection, to select its own exhibition-rooms in the Academy, and to superintend the hanging of its own pictures. The catalogue of this exhibition, published by the Philadelphia Academy, contained this foreword:
The pictures in this exhibition have, with very few exceptions, been chosen from those that were hung in a series of exhibitions at the Photo-Secession Galleries in New York during the present season. They summarize in a broad way the trend of that international movement of which the Photo-Secession is the organized American exponent, a protest against the conventional conception of what constitutes pictorial photography.
At St. Louis, with whose Exposition the Secession refused to be associated a few years ago, though invited, because the Exhibition management evaded pledging itself to accord to pictorial photography, the recognition and standing accorded at Turin, and elsewhere, abroad and here, it being a principle of the Secession to surrender no ground gained, the Secession is now scheduled for an exhibition during the coming season in the Art Academy, and on the invitation of Mr. Halsey Ives, the Art Director of that Exposition.
And now the smoke of battle has cleared away, its din reverberates no longer, and it is possible, with calm brain and clear vision, to look over the field even to the horizon. All the serious workers and believers in the cause have turned their faces towards that horizon, and are already speculating as to the possibilities of the future that lies beyond. Some of those who in the beginning claimed to have been with the Secession, are now ranged against it, but they represent only themselves. The soundness of the principles for which the Secession was organized to contend have been more than tested, proven and sustained. Many, who in the past were, through misunderstanding, the bitterest of its opponents, are now ranged with it. Some, indeed, misunderstanding its purpose, have felt that the Secession has not done all that it might in helping individuals along the road to fame, through sympathetic appreciation, and allowance for the drawbacks of personal surroundings; and hence, that some careers have been marred through the Secession’s failure to exploit work which, while often of great promise, appealed to the imagination largely through what, designed to convey, it failed to express, or did so but indifferently. Unlike certain critics, who appear to believe of themselves that a word from them could mar or
50
[pgbrk] make an artistic reputation, the Secession never suffered from any such delusion. The making or marring is alone the work of the individual. The worth of the work, not the individual, was that to which the Secession, by the very nature of things, was compelled to look; for its purpose was to marshal the best work to be had, in the most convincing manner possible, in the proving of its case; and it would seem from the results that its decisions were safe, and the verdict of the art public with it. Did it ever become possessed of the foolish vanity of believing that by its mere will it could make this one a great photographer, or pull that great one down, then surely would it soon perish, for endeavoring to arrogate to itself the function and powers of gods and the Individual Self. The Secession does not claim to even begin to represent and encompass within itself all that is best and finest in American pictorial photography. It simply stands for an idea—that idea is faith in the future of photography as a medium of original art expression, faith in the principle that the soundness of an idea will be tested by time, and that the logical, consistent support of a sound idea is bound to win out in the end.
To-day in America the real battle for the recognition of pictorial photography is over. The chief purpose for which the Photo-Secession was established has been accomplished—the serious recognition of photography as an additional medium of pictorial expression. But even for this there is now small room. The partisan feeling, that in the past ran high, and in moments of white heat made possible the publication of bitter personal attacks, has burnt itself out for lack of fuel. In that time all have learned salutary lessons; and to-day, in America, there are few photographic publications that are willing to descend to personal attack, or open their columns to vituperative abuse or ridicule of any worker. It has come to be generally understood that the Photo-Secession, because it has set unto itself a definite end, is not of necessity an enemy of all other organizations or movements. Furthermore, it has likewise come to be appreciated that all other photoorganizations seriously interested in the recognition of photography as a new medium of expression, are very materially and deeply interested in the aims and accomplishments of the Secession. So long as the photographers quarreled among themselves, as to standards and exhibitions and salons, it was impossible to carry conviction of their claims to those outside their circle and the public.
In reviewing the First Philadelphia Salon, that of 1898, voicing the convictions of those who were deeply interested in the advancement of the pictorial movement, and who had studied and taken active part in the movement here and abroad for many years practically from its inception, Camera Notes addressed the following words to those struggling for the universal recognition of photography as an independent medium of original pictorial expression, which, being equally applicable now as then, I shall quote in closing:
Progress in the right direction can only be accomplished by the united action of all serious workers in photography, irrespective of race or country; for it is a true art, it knows no country, but claims the best energies of the world. JOSEPH T. KEILEY
51
[pgbrk] THE ELEMENT OF VANITY IN EXHIBITION WORK.
VANITY makes vulnerable to the weakness of small-mindedness, nature’s naturally noble, and large, and generous of thought. It creates thirst for notice and admiration, however small, and sows in the brain the bitter germ of envy. It is the vicious element of exhibitions — vicious, in that it too often makes the exhibition the creator of pictures, whereas, pictures should call into being the exhibition. The picture that has found its inspiration in the desire of its maker to be recognized and praised, is more apt to be the creation of cleverness and technical knowledge than genius. As such, what little beauty it possesses is echoed, rather than real. Such a picture is not the irresistible voicing of what is termed inspiration — is not the giving form to some vibration of beauty that has stirred within the nature of the artist, and that must find expression for the love of the thing itself; for the joy of giving form and permanence to a flitting idea or fancy, a melting dream, that has charmed the soul—before it fades again into the realm of vanished thought.
The real artist makes pictures for the same reason that the bird sings — because he must. He makes them for the joy of their making. He works for the love of the work, not for the money or fame the work may bring. His chief motive is the harmonious expression of his thought. It is but human that appreciation and commendation should gratify; but the lack thereof never influences the true artist in the execution of the dictates of his inspiration. He, on the contrary, who makes pictures for exhibitions, is ever on the alert to do something that will catch the popular eye — win popular approval. “ Popular approval ” in art is of the gregarious sort that springs from two sources — majority-taste (the same that dictates in style, uniformity, under penalty of bad form for its neglect, of visiting-card, or opera-hat), and — the vanity of knowing. “They say” it is good or bad — therefore, I must be in accord with the opinions of “they,” because everybody knows “ they ” are right. Once this fever of being favorably recognized at exhibitions has seized upon a victim, inevitably he is afflicted with that spirit of rivalry, and the desire to be the master par excellence of the exhibition. Sequent to this is the envy of others, and their greater success. It is a part acted before the eyes of the public—this conquest for rank and honors at exhibitions. Hence, when defeat comes, or failure to obtain what seems to be proper recognition, the sufferer feels it incumbent to protect any professional reputation already possessed, by seeking to show that not lack of ability, but rather prejudice and partiality on the part of the jury, was the cause thereof. Under the stress of such petty irritation, the finer side of one’s nature must suffer — must degenerate. Embittered by disappointment and envy, the judgment becomes warped, and inspiration atrophied. Were it but realized that no exhibition or critic can make or mar the production of real genius, give to it permanency of standing, or cause its permanent eclipse, it would be infinitely better for art, generally speaking. As an example of the truth of this, well-informed
52
[pgbrk] students of the painters’ annual exhibitions have remarked that, while such exhibitions show often a broader range of subject, from year to year, the artistic standards are not sustained. Neither does the mass of the results impress with the sincerity and value of the purpose of the work displayed. Viewing them, one is apt to ask oneself, after admiring the clever handling fo pigments: But have they got to be painted, all these ?
On serious reflection, the cause is not far to seek. When inspiration to create pictures springs chiefly from the desire to exhibit, win membership in a society, or public popularity and newspaper praise, the artistic results are apt to be not of the highest or the noblest. Joseph T. Keiley.
AN ARABESQUE.
FOR years, at the bidding of the high priest, performers played at intervals upon chimes in the tower of the Temple of Aspiration. And now and then, the neighboring people stirred from their lethargy, and complained that the call of the chimes broke in upon their rest and peace.
So, finally, the high priest kept the bells mute. And there was silence — a silence “as of a world left empty of its throng.” And the neighboring people stirred, and were restless; woke, and wondered at the great void.
But should the chimes again ring out, who can say if they would be better understood? Dallett Fuguet.
53
[pgbrk] THE PHOTO-SECESSION GALLERIES— SEASON 1906-1907.
THE second season of the Photo-Secession Galleries will be inaugurated in November with an exhibition of work by the members of the Photo-Secession. Exhibition of American and foreign photographs will follow. The galleries will be open daily, Sundays excepted, from 10 a. m. till 5 p. m. Admittance is free upon presentation of visiting-card.
OUR PICTURES.
THE French collection of gum-prints exhibited last winter at the Photo-Secession Galleries created an unusual stir; especially was this the case amongst those interested in the processes of photographic printing methods. Our plates are reproductions of twelve of these prints. M. Demachy, universally considered the leading spirit of the French school of pictorial photography, needs no introduction to the readers of Camera Work, as previous issues contained reproductions of many of his efforts. Demachy is always of interest, and we only regret that even the best of reproduction processes should give but a very inadequate idea of the exquisite technique of his original prints. It might be added that many of the latter are owned by a New York collector.
Although Camera Work has heretofore published none of the work of Captain Puyo or M. Renée Le Bègue, yet these two French photographers, in a broad sense, must be classed with M. Demachy, as photo-pictorialists. Like the latter, M. Puyo is an indefatigable experimenter, and as such probably ranks first in French photography. From a photographer’s point of view, Puyo is certainly a remarkable technician. Both Puyo and Demachy are very prolific workers. Renée Le Bègue, although not as prolific as his confrères, always reveals the artist in all he does, and artistically his photographs are second to none produced by the French school.
IN MEMORIAM.
ALL who are interested in pictorial photography have heard with great regret of the recent death of Mrs. George A. Stanbery, of Zanesville, Ohio, an Associate of the Photo-Secession. She was an earnest worker, interested in the experimental stages of pictorial photography. She was very active in her own circle, ever ready to give any assistance within her power in an unostentatious and unselfish spirit.
54
[pgbrk] Other Papers Are Tried
VELOX
Is Used
A Grade for Every Use
and
A Use for Every Grade NEPERA DIVISION
Eastman Kodak Company All Dealers ROCHESTER, N. Y.
[pgbrk] STEICHEN SUPPLEMENT
A SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTARY NUMBER OF CAMERA WORK WAS ISSUED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH NO. XIV (THE STEICHEN NUMBER). IT CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING PLATES:
MOONLIGHT (PHOTOGRAVURE IN TWO COLORS)
THE BIG WHITE CLOUD RODIN —LE PENSEUR J. PIERPONT MORGAN DUSE
MAETERLINCK IN MEMORIAM SOLITUDE WM. M. CHASE
DOUBLE PORTRAIT —EVENING POSTER LADY
LANDSCAPE IN TWO COLORS THE MODEL AND THE MASK SPRING PROFILE
THE WHITE LADY
AS BUT A LIMITED NUMBER OF THESE NOT SUBSCRIBED FOR HAVE BEEN PRINTED, THE PRICE OF THIS SUPPLEMENT WILL BE, FOR THE PRESENT, SEVEN DOLLARS.
TOGETHER WITH NO. XIV, THE REGULAR NUMBER CONTAINING TEN STEICHEN PRINTS, THE PRICE FOR THE PRESENT WILL BE TEN DOLLARS.
EDITION DE LUXE
SIXTY-FIVE (65) SIGNED AND NUMBERED COPIES, OF WHICH BUT FORTY COPIES ARE FOR SALE, CONTAIN TWENTY-NINE SPECIALLY SELECTED PROOFS OF MR. STEICHEN’S WORK MOUNTED ON SPECIAL PAPER ABOUT 13x19 INCHES. THE BOOK IS BOUND IN A SPECIALLY DESIGNED STIFF BOARD COVER. PRICE, UNTIL OCTOBER FIRST, THIRTY DOLLARS; THEREAFTER, FIFTY DOLLARS.
THIS BOOK IS UNIQUE IN EVERY PARTICULAR.
[pgbrk] When purchasing a developer SCHERING'S The oldest and most favorably
please be particular to specify known brand
PUT UP WITH LABELS AND SEALS AS PER FACSIMILES HERE GIVEN
ONE OUNCE
PYROGALLIC ACID
RESUBLIMED
E. SCHERING,—
MANUFACTURING CHEMIST, BERLIN,GERMANY.
The Standard of the Fourth—
Last—Edition of the German Pharmacopoeia
REGISTERED
See that you get the Genuine “SCHERING’S” Excelled by None
FOR SALE BY ALL DEALERS
OUR NEW CATALOG
SEND to us for our new De Luxe Catalogue, with the Steichen Prize-winning Cover. It also contains some splendid specimens of technical and pictorial photography, all done with Goerz Lenses.
C. P. GOERZ AMERICAN OPTICAL CO.
52 UNION SQUARE, NEW YORK
[pgbrk] THE PHOTOCHROME ENGRAVING COMPANY
Half-tones & Color-plates
162-166 Leonard St., New York
THE FLEMING PRESS
Printers of Camera Work
Also of High-class Catalogs, Announcements, Etcetera
32 Union Sq uare, East New York
Telephone 2081 Gramercy
THE MANHATTAN PHOTOGRAVURE CO.
Art Reproductions, Catalogs
142 West 2,7™ Street New York
Telephone 2193 Madison Square
[pgbrk] The
4A Folding Kodak
For Pictures 4¼x6½
A 40 H.-P. Touring Car for the man who has outgrown his F. P. K. Runabout
Price, $35.00
All Dealers
Eastman Kodak Company Rochester, N. Y.
The Kodak City
[pgbrk] Bausch&Lomb-Zeiss
TESSAR
LENS
The Sign of Success
when buying a camera is found in the Tessar Lens. The Lens is the important thing to consider. The cash value of wasted film, plates and chemicals, to say nothing of wasted opportunities will soon make up the difference between the cost of a Tessar lens that will get results under all kinds of conditions and the slower less optically perfect lenses usually furnished with cameras.
The great manufacturers recognize the value of Tessar, hence Kodaks, Premos, Centuries, Hawk Eyes, Graflex, etc. are now supplied with Tessar Lenses.
Insist that the dealer shows you cameras fitted with Tessar Lenses.
Booklet Aids to Artistic Aims on request
Bausch & Lomb Optical Co.
Rochester, N. Y.
NEW YORK BOSTON WASHINGTON CHICAGO SAN FRANCISCO
[pgbrk] The
GRAFLEX
HAS PROVEN EQUAL TO EVERY PHOTOGRAPHIC TEST
IT is designed for every kind of photographic work, and there is no other Camera like it.
Mr. Stieglitz says :
Messers. Folmer & Schwing,
Gentlemen:—As you are aware, it is against my principles to give testimonials except on rare occasions—and this is to be one of those occasions, for I believe you have fully earned that distinction.
Ever since the Graflex has been in the market I have used it for many purposes. At present I own a 5x7, 4x5, and a 3¼ X 4¼, and I confess the family has never caused me one moment of uneasiness. It is beyond my understanding how any serious photographer can get along without at least one Graflex. If circumstances compel me to choose but one type of camera when off on a trip, it invariably means my taking a Graflex. A Pocket Kodak, a Graflex, and a tripod 8 x 10 is a complete outfit for any pictorialist. In actual money outlay the Graflex may be expensive, but in the long run it’s the cheapest camera I ever owned.
Wishing you the reward your work so fully deserves, and with kindest regards,
Yours, etc.,
ALFRED STIEGLITZ.
There is nothing too quick for a Graflex.
ASK YOUR DEALER, OR WRITE
FOLMER & SCHWING CO.
ROCHESTER NEW YORK
[pgbrk] By Right of Quality
Leads the World.
The dry plate that is invariably used where quality is the only consideration.
ST. LOUIS, MO.
M. A. SEED
DRY PLATE
COMPANY
M. A. SEED DRY PLATE CO, ST. LOUIS. MO.
[pgbrk] Pictures Mounted With
HIGGINS' PHOTO MOUNTER
Have an excellence peculiarly their own. The best results are only produced by the best methods and means—the best results in Photograph, Poster, and other mounting can only be attained by using the best mounting paste—
HIGGINS' PHOTO MOUNTER
(Excellent novel brush with each jar.)
At Dealers in Photo Supplies, Artists' Materials and Stationery.
A 3-0Z. jar prepaid by mail for thirty cts. or circulars free from
CHAS. M. HIGGINS & CO., Mfrs.
NEW YORK—CHICAGO—LONDON Main Office, 271 Ninth St. ) Brooklyn, Factory, 240-244 Eighth St. ) N. Y., U.S.A.
This Brand Insures Best Results
for all
Lantern-slide Workers
Size 3 ¼ x 4. 55 cents per doz.
Used by all the principal lantern-slide publishers all over the world.
Why don’t YOU? They are Perfect
Hauff’s Metol, Hydrokinone, Ortol, Glycin, Pyrol
The Standard Developers
Look for the Little White Ticket, the guarantee that they are Hauff’s
G. GENNERT (Sole Agent)
24-26 East 13th St., New York 23 East Lake St., Chicago
[pgbrk] THE GOERZ
DOUBLE ANASTIGMAT
“Dagor”
SERIES III. F6.8
THIS lens has stood the test of time, and throughout the photographic world has the reputation of being the best
Universal (all-around) Lens
in the market. It is the standard by which the value of all other lenses is measured.
Can be used to photograph Portraits, Groups, Snapshots (in comparatively poor light), Landscape, Architecture, Interiors, etc., etc.
The back combination can be used as a single lens with a focal length equivalent to about double that of the doublet.
C. P. GOERZ
52 UNION SQUARE, NEW YORK
CHICAGO, Heyworth Building LONDON, 16 Holborn Circus BERLIN, Friedenau 78 PARIS, 22 rue de l’Entrepot
Catalogue upon application. All dealers or direct.
[pgbrk] 147 Fulton Street
(new address)
The new store is just a few yards east of Broadway, and has more than double the floor area of the old location.
The most modern appliances for developing and printing have been installed, which means better and quicker work than ever before.
All the latest photographic novelties, and a complete line of Kodaks and Cameras
are kept in stock, besides a full assortment of printing papers and films always fresh.
The mail-order department is a special feature. They are ready to take care of orders from all parts of the globe, and render the best possible service.
Their 68-page illustrated handbook, also catalogues of Cameras and Lenses, will be mailed free on request.
(Send for Photo Newspaper—DOWN-TOWN TOPICS —free)
The Obrig Camera Co.
147 Fulton St., New York City
Telephone, No. 4704Cortlandt
The Platinotype
Announcement
September 1st we shall introduce a new and exquisitely beautiful sepia paper, which we call
JAPINE
A sepia Platinotype paper of the highest quality, and the results will be in pure platinum, and permanent.
Write for particulars
Willis & Clements
Philadelphia, Pa.
BINDINGS FOR CAMERA WORK
AS DESIGNED BY MESSRS. ALFRED STIEGLITZ AND EDUARD J. STEICHEN
High-class Binding of all descriptions. Photographs Mounted and Bound in Album Form, etc., etc.
OTTO KNOLL
743 LEXINGTON AVENUE, NEW Y ORK, N. Y. Telephone 1810 Plaza
Seymour Company
Fine Book and Pamphlet Papers
76 Duane Street, New York
[pgbrk] NEW!
Extra Heavy Smooth
American Platinum
Price-list
PER DOZ. PER DOZ.
3½ x3 ½ • • $0.30 10XI2. . . $2.65
3 ¼ x4¼ . .30 11 x 14 . . . 3.45
4x5 . .50 14x17. . . 5.00
3 7/8x5½ (Cab.) .55 l6 X 20 . . . 7.00
4¼x5½ . • .55 20X 26. . . 10.50
4¼x6½ . .60 10x26 sheet, .90
5 x 7 .80 Roll, 20 in. wide,
5x8 • .85 26 ft. long . 10.50
5½x7¾. . 1.00 ½ Roll (13 ft.) 5.25
6 ½ x 8 ½ . • 1.25 ¼ "(6½ ft.) 2.65
8 x 10 • 1.75
Manufactured only by
AMERICAN ARISTOTYPE CO.
JAMESTOWN, N. Y.
[pgbrk] Established GEO. F. OF Telephone
1873 2533 Madison Square
MAKER OF FINE FRAMES
and Reproductions Framed with Artistic Judgment 3 East Twenty-eighth Street, New York
LINING-BEVELERS are intended to do that perfect work on a Photo-engraved plate that the brain can conceive, but the hand can not execute. They will carry out the idea of the artist in framing or making a finished border that completes the lines of the picture.
Those made by JOHN ROYLE & SONS of Paterson, N. J., are perfected machines in every respect, and will do this work most reliably and in almost endless variety.
If you are interested in Photo-engraving or kindred work, send to them for full information.
New Hand-camera Mounting of Heliar Lenses
These lenses are now mounted in specially compact form suitable for
Graflex and Reflex cameras
Note.—There are several Anastigmats, advertised as F 4.5 lenses, but that aperture applies only to their small sizes. The Heliar works at F 4.5 in all sizes.
The Heliar leads them all in speed.
Try it and see.
The Voigtlaender & Son Optical Co.
124 West Twenty-third Street, New York
[pgbrk] For 25 years the accepted standard plate of Europe. That speaks for itself. Have you tried them? We send you a free sample for the asking.
Lumière
All kinds of plates for every possible requirement
Σ (Sigma Brand); fastest in the world.
Green Label; extra rapid.
Yellow Label; medium.
Blue Label; specially soft working.
Red Label; slow.
Orthochromatic A; sensitive to green and yellow.
Orthochromatic B; sensitive to yellow and red.
Panchromatic C; sensitive to green, yellow, and red; are the most sensitive to red manufactured.
Non-halation Ortho; the only plate on the market which is all its name signifies.
Lantern-slide and Transparency Plates
The Lumière N. A. Co., Ltd.
New York Office: 11 West 27th Street
Factories: Lyons, France; Burlington, Vt.
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk]
[pgbrk] The Kodak Tank Developer
Saves
Film for the Novice Labor for the Expert
Best Results for Both.
It's Daylight All the Way
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, N.Y.
All Dealers The Kodak City