HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY ocarfpec 1984 p2TI-275 The Myth of Art Photography: A Sociological Analysis By Ulrich F. Keller fer more than one hundred years of second-class existence, photography has become respectable Today, artists make little ideological distinction between the eamera and other visual tools, such as the brush or the silkscreen; museums purchase and exhibit camera images along with paintings and engravings, and art dealers have dlosed the price gap between photography and the traditional graphic media. Most importantly, perhaps, Photography has become acceptable in its totality, with the {all range of applications from journalism to advertising, science and industry. Asa result, critics and historians of photography find themselves in a new situation. Formerly, they were pressured to emphasize the camera's atistic achievements, and especially the Art Photography movement around 1900, in order to legitimize photogeaphy as a branch of the visual arts and a field of historical study. Today, they can freely investigate every aspect of the medium without exposing themselves and their subject to the contempt of ‘serious’ art historians. Among other things, this means that the time has come to take a fresh look at Art Photography itself, and since the validity of the Photog:aphie medium does not stand and fall any more with the work of Stieglitz and Steichen, it has become Possible to attempt such an inguiry from a critical point of view, with the intention of recovering neglected aspects of, and re-examining traditional assumptions about, Art Photography. The emergence of the movement from the sphere of popular snapshooting, its institutional infrastructure, its aesthetic principles, the range and roots Sits iconography, and more generally, the contradictions of an amateur pastime trying to establish itself as a ‘high art’ proposition — these and other topics promise interesting results, especially if an attempt is made to utilize the whole range of available sources, rather than a very avon or Puorostan, Votune 8, Nona ¢, Ocrowen Decetee 1984 few accepted and overused contemporary publications such a8 Camera Notes and Camera Work. Considering that most Tecent studies of Art Photogeaphy have followed a chronological or biographical pattern, a return to the issues secms indeed overdue. To preclude misunderstandings, it must be added that it is not the purpose of this article to offer a complete history of Art Photography, nor to attempt a fully balanced appreciation of the movement. Many things that can be said in its favour will be ignored for the simple reason that they have been repeated often enough, ‘The point is to read a chapter in the history of photography ‘against the grain’, ‘even if it means to overemphasize critical arguments. At the present time, such a reversal of bias appears as a prerequisite for a more differentiated and eventually just understanding of Art Photography. . Our analysis begins with what we might call the instintional aspects of the movement, i.e., the conditions under, or the context within which, art photographs were typically produced. Such a sociological inquiry is a much needed prerequisite for the study of art photographic iconography proper, to be attempted in a second article. AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE ART MOTIVE Art Photography emerged in a specific cultural constellation: the rapid growth of industry and the mass ‘manufacture of cheap commodities which brought previously unknown comforts into the reach of the Victorian bourgeoisie. Inevitably, this economic progress entailed a rise of materialistic attitudes and a decline of ‘esthetic standards which alarmed ‘enlightened!’ members of the upper middle class. Thus, it was only a matter of time until the tide of industrialization triggered a reform movement aimed at the aesthetic improvement of 249i all commodity manufacture, While the first reform stirrings ‘on occasion of the Crystal Palace exhibition of 1851 had little Fesonance, W. Morris’ Arts-and-Crafis movement and related schools of interior design later gained remarkable popularity in Britain and proceeded to spread. to the continent during the 190s under the Art Nouveau label. In the advanced industrial nations, a growing number of the educated now began to retreat from the ‘vulgarity’ and ‘materialism’ of their industrial environment into the tranquil and cultivated atmosphere of Tudor homes, floral wallpapers, undulating vases and iophile libraries. An interior of this kind passed for nothing less than ‘the manifestation of the refinement of its owner’s artistic temperament’, as The Studio put it “The cultivation of our artistic narure as an integral part of our daily life’ — to quote The Studio once more — became a slogan of the day. Apart from the mere acquisition of exquisite artifacts this postulate also called for aesthetic selt-improvement by the dilettantic pursuit of poetry, music and picture-making. ‘This explains the great importance attached to attistic amateur activities by the promoters of the Aesthetic Movement, Photography claimed a place in this socio-cultural environment at a rather late point, Until the 1880s the production of camera images was an expensive and difficult affair which discouraged all but the most stubborn amateurs. Thus, photography essentially remained the domain of big professional ‘establishments! typified by a complex technical infrastructure, extensive division of labour, considerable capital investment and a talented ‘entrepreneur to make it all work, In this professional studio sphere, economic constraints were so overwhelming that the efforts of a very few ‘art’ photographers such as Rejlander and Robinson failed to have a noticeable elfect ‘on the aesthetically-inferior mass manufacture of portrait and stereo cards When technical improvements such as fast gelatine emulsions and handy pocket cameras radically simplified photography in the 1880s, a broad amateur movement was 250 Figure 1. ‘Anyone can take pictures lik thee with a $6.09 Kodak» Kodak advertisement, 1894 (Courtesy Eastman Ko's> Cy) born and quickly introduced into photography the aesthetic reform motif which had been alien to the commercial photo factories.’ The artistic revival did not happen overnight, nor was ita matter of universal consensus. In the following paragraphs, we will describe the amateur movernent as a differentiated and dynamic phenomenon ranging trom popular snapshooting over artistically informed amateur work to the thigh art’ aspirations of litist circles. Chronologically, socially and aesthetically, of course, there ‘was more overlap between these phases than we ean demonstrate for the sake of a clearcut evolutionary model First of all, the meeting of a new generation of cameras and a large new class of users resulted in a whole new range ‘of pictorial concerns, centered in the private sphere, Family gatherings, weddings, mothers and babies, children at play, ppet animals, beach amusements and beautiful scenery were typical of the new amateur iconography, While most of these images were artless, unpretentious snapshots (Figure 1) they featured subjects which we will encounter again on higher levels of amateur photography, under a more ‘artistic? guise Among the millions taking up photography os a pastime, some were influenced by the current aesthetic reform ideas and began ¢o look upon camera work as a serious occupation involving the purchase of sophisticated equipment, carefully-planned vacation trips to scenic regions, frequent museum visits and art historical studies In their hands photography gradually gained an artistic dimension, and in the process a special support system of clubs, periodicals and exhibitions sprang up around it, ‘The swift rise of these organized amateur groups is iMustrated by the twenty-fold increase of photographic societies in Britain and America between 1880 and 190). ‘The first magazine to cater to the new clas photographers was the (British) Amateur Photog founded in 1884 and followed by American, French ond German counterparts within a few years. The first anual exhibitions for ‘artistic’ amateur photography sere sponsored by the London Stereoscopic Company (1885-7) of Hoorom oF Prowacaa, Yate 8, Note 4, Ocronee Beets 134Figure 2. R. Ditekoop, Portrait and the Philadelphia, New York and Boston amateur societies (1886 ft) While forming an organized movement, the ‘att Photographers also cultivated their own aesthetic creed in order to separate themselves more clearly from the rest of amateur photography. Characteristically, the very first issue of the American Amateur Photographer opened with an attack on those camera buffs who photographed ‘merely for amusement” and demanded instead an ‘earnest and untiring search for the beautiful’ from its subscribers.” With chis exhortation in mind, the serious amateurs treated the usual family and vacation motifs with greater care than ‘he average Kedak owner, placing particular emphasis on fighting, composition and similar ‘pictorial’ effects. 1 is important to understand, however, that the organized and artistcally-minded amateurs found themselves not only in opposition to trivial snapshot Production, but also to the more formidable foe of commercial seadio photography, which had dominated the seene for decades. At this second battlefront the art Photographers fought for fine craftsmanship versus ‘nechanical mass production, tasteful and intimate interiors versus theatrical stacio props, personal expression versus versus stereotyped poses — principles by which they hoped ‘© give photography the same aesthetic ‘uplift’ that had f2rliet been effected in the field of furniture manufacture by the various Arts and Cralts groups.* The Myth of Art Photography a Lady’, ca. 1905, 135 x 180 mm (Museum fir Kunst und Gaverte, Hamburg) Consequently, one often finds the sitters in ‘pictorial portraits surrounded by exquisite artefacts, posing as masters of the kind of tastefully decorated home that was commonly recognized as ‘the manifestation of the ic temperament’. The close kinship between the Aesthetic Movement and Art Photography (including the elitist phase to be discussed later) manifests itself quite clearly here.’ No doubs, if are nouveau furniture and ceramics provided the proper environment for the firedesiiele aesthete, photographic likenesses in the ‘pictorial’ style offered the sitter a faithful mirror image (Figuee 2) In photo-critical publications of the time, such artistically - ennobled interiors were often juxtaposed with refinement of its owner"s art conventional studio pictures, producing an eloquent contrast of styles and principles. Ch. Caffin, for example, reproduced the carte-de-visite portrait in Figure 3 in his study Photography as a Fine Art, While he only intended to demonstrate the inferiority of run-of-the-mill portraits, other crties introduced similar comparisons for ‘crusading’ purposes, ie., in order to ‘convert’ professional photographers tothe artistic cause. For instance, a German author combined an attack on ugly, factory-made stidio furniture (for a typical contemporary advertisement see Figure 4) with the exhortation that professional photographers should follow the amateurs’ example by Using beautiful art nouveau products; a Walton chair was 251$$ eee reproduced as a laudable example (Figure 5).* However, it was A. Lichtwark, director of the Hamburg Kunsthalle, who entertained the grandest vision of ‘artistic’ amateur photography as a reform tol Concerned mainly with architecture, painting and interior decoration, he also supported photography for philosophical reasons outlined in his book Die Bedeutung der Amateurphotographie (1894). Lichtwark diagnosed a Progressive professionalization and specialization in contemporary society, which he feared was going to confine all cultural activities within rigid conventional patterns. Photographie dilettantism appeared to him not only as a Promising method of breaking up such petrified professional attitudes and of spreading aesthetic culture through all ranks of society; he also favoured it as a vehicle of infusing commercial photography, portrait painting and industrial commodity production in general with fresh ideas and higher aesthetic standaeds.® With these ambitious reform ideas in mind — which in effece did not recognize amateur photography as an end. in itself, but rather as a dynamo of broad cultural change — Lichtwark opened the doors of the Hamburg Kunsthalle to annual exhibitions of amateur photography. The first of these took place in 1893 and included over 6000 images —a clear indication of the organizers’ intention to create a far-reaching social ‘ripple effect’."” ‘The professional portrait photographers in Germany were especially responsive to Lichtwark’s reform efforts. ‘The numerous converts to the ‘pictorial’ style included men like R. Dithrkoop in Hamburg, H, Erfurth in Dresden and N, Perscheid in Leipzig (e.g-, see Figure 2), In 1902, F. ‘Matthies-Masuren even launched a series of well-lustrated yearbooks designed to bridge the gap between artistically minded amateurs and professionals, and more specifically 0 improve the quality of commercial portraiture."" In America similar but independent developments occurred on a smaller scale. Zaida Ben-Yussuf, for example, was a leading figure among the ‘enlightened’ professionals, while the Pioto-Beacon devoted itself 10 the aesthetic improvement of professional studio work by sponsoring prize competitions."* Well intended as many of these efforts were, in the long ‘run they were not sulficient to overcome the basic obstacle to artistic reform in the professional field, namely the problem that every improvement added time and labour, and called for cultivated clients willing to pay high prices. As a result, artistic aspirations never spread very far in studio photography. An additional obstacle arose when “pictorial” amateur photography began to move in an elitist rection, interrupting any dialogue with the professional ‘camp on the one side and the ordinary amateurs on the other. By the early 1900s, even the Kunsthalle exhibitions hhad become highly exclusive events, orchestrated to accord special prestige to the select participants at the expense of broad aesthetic reform purposes," ‘THE ELITIST TREND IN ART PHOTOGRAPHY From the beginning, reform goals had probably been much more on the minds of promoters and editors such as 252 Lichiwark or Matthies Masuren, than of the photographers themselves. As plain amzteurs mos op Iaer were content withthe personal yratcton denen from artistic camera work, without a8: whether see at large stood t0 benefit fom i. Gust demonnrasey an excellent sense for this psychological dimension artic amateur photography when he » rote in 1909 thee all the “modest amateur’ cared for ast catch at ‘occasional glimpse of the ‘Dreatn City of Aw’ te a magic residence ofthe artist, [the] git being for hens there is more richness in life than for ordinary moval favourite ofthe gods, a confidant of N vce, entranicg her with the delivery of cheeting messvs-s to the wend L Romantically-exaggerated ideas of anisic gems ag described here by Guest, povided a jx crful moivatin forthe pursue of Art Photography. Mere than tat, they led to a steady escalation of art ambitinns, antl » mat fraternity of devotees had erystalized sho practised they art wth quasi-religious fervor. Heme: came that shorty afer the ‘serious’ amateurs had separated fom th, snapshooters, a second division developed within the ranks ofthe organized amateurs. Between 1392 and 1902 ete trends led to the foundation of several sssoriations which were fashioned after painters! groups such a the Pre. Raphaelite Brotherhood, the Nabis nd the German Secessions, and which underscored thei clusive character by names lke The Linked Ring Brothhood (London), Cercle I Etfor (Brussel), the Trifoliura (Vienna), the Elect (Chicago) and the Photo-Secession (Nes York), A string of elitist exhibitions was initiated in 1891 in Vienna, with much publicity being given to the jury's advanced artistic standards. and. sevcre elimination methods." Two years later, the Linked Ring launched its annual ‘Salon’, a name deliberately chos-n because of “its application by the French to certain fin: art exhibitions of distinctive and high class character’ iy 1905 at least, dozen photographie Salons had emerged inthe culurally- leading cities of the Western hemisphere, and the elitist art photographers had eclipsed theless sophisticated rival ‘groups. Ascould be expected, the foundation of elitist lubs was the pet project of unusually wealthy and educated men such as lawyers (Keiley), bankers (Demachy), merchants (the Hofimeisters) heirs (Kahn) and aristoracs (le Meyer). Members ofthe nobility played a particalscly prominent role in the enowned Wiener Camera Club, hich enjoyed the patronage of Matia Theresia of Hapsburs, counted four archdukes among its honorary affliaes, and was actively supported by several counts and barons, notably of the Rothschild fail In such circles considerable emphasis was placed on stylish cloching (Figure 6), on gatherings in fine cestaurants (Figure 7), aftesdinner’ speeches, and luxvrious cub accommodations. Appreciation of the acest .antgarde trends in art and literature (Maeterlinck, ‘ u, Stuck, ‘Toorop, Carritre) was deriguew. The wealthy ‘thn even could afford a house designed and decorated! | artists of the celebrated Wiener Werstitt, while F. Evans ws content to buy Kelmscott Press publications and to cultivate @ Foroay or Puoroorani: Voucwea, Nesaex 8, enous se 98 fenle Figure 5, Typical commercial portrait, ea. 1870 (from Caffin, Photography as a Fine Art). Original size unavailable, friendship with A. Beardsley. F. H. Day's expensive hobbies included the staging of medieval costume parties, the collection of Keatsiana and the publication of exquisite Are Nouveau books.” No further details are needed to establish the character of the elitist photo clubs, essentially, they were prestig far from secing themselves as hobbyists and savouring occasional glimpses of the ‘Dream City of Art they strove for full possession of the supreme recognition We should add that e which caused men commonly associated with ‘genius "most likely i was this thirst for presti like Day or Demachy to turn to photography in the first lace, ‘The fact was, more than any other available amateur ‘medium it offered the prospect of quick and easy fame — 8 G. Balfour stressed already in 1890: ‘The [photographie technique is up to a certain + the method itself so far fills up the weak points of the incomplete artist, with all the evils of incompetent point so simple and so soon learned The Myth of Art Photography judging and overmeddeing, the exhibition system gives so many opportunities and so definite a recognition, that a man with natural gifts is sure to turn out good wark and to make a reputation by it Tong before be could get beyond the preliminary drudgery in arcs.®” ‘Apart from emphasizing the absence of technical barriers, Balfour importance of exhibitions, juries, ete. If, indeed, artistic prestige was the clitists' principal goal, they could not limit themselves to the mere production of ‘pictorial’ photographs. In addltior it was necessary to have the pictures exhibited and certified ‘as ‘art’ through an authoritative institutional framework, Contrary to Balfour's much too positive statement, however, the amateur movement itself lacked any inbuilt ‘authority which could confer credible art status to a picture. Moreover, since the ‘high art’ establishment (academies, directs our attention to the ‘museums, critics) rejected photography asa legitimate art form, the elitist photo clubs had only one possibility of satisfying their hunger for artistic prestige: to fill the authority vacuum with institutions of their own making, Gonsequently, their basic project the transformation of an informal amateur movement into a “high are’ enterprise complete with social rituals, exhibitions, publications and aesthetic doctrines molded alter the example ofthe established media of painting and sculpture, became OFFICIAL AND ALTERNATIVE ART WORLDS Before we can attempt to understand the ‘art world? constructed by the pictorial photographers it is advisable to take a look at its ‘high art’ model." The latter took definite form during the industrialization of Europe and the concomitant rise of the bourgeoisie, which gave the arts large new audiences with unprecedented resources of wealth and leisure time. The skyracketing production and consumption of art objects meant, in cum, that new mechanisms had to be created to bridge the growing gap between the artists and the public. Among other things, authoritative institutions were needed which eauld eredibly extend (or deny) ‘art’ status to-a given work, That is ta say, in order to be bought and/or enjoyed as art, a work had (© be produced by a person with professional accreditation; the work also had to be put on display in art museums or reputable, rigorously judged exhibitions; ic had co be evaluated by art critics in view of current theories; and art dealers had to invest in it a8 a valuable product ‘The institution of museums, academies, exhibitions, awards, att journals, art dealing and governmental aid mechanisms effectively organized the production and consumption of art on the required large and impersonal le — but at a high cost. Institutions generally tend to petrify, and this was bound to create problems in a field in need of constant creative change. As aging academy professors took charge of the art world, innovative artists found themselves ostracized. The larger their ranks grew, the more they felt encouraged to ‘unionize’, and thus the 19th-century witnessed a long succession of attempts by onaSOUTH HVT sTRERT. Figure 4 Advertisement for studio furniturs, refust to instivute exhibition/criticism/sales cixeuits of their From the studios, anti-academic attitudes spread to the Public at large, By the end of the 19th-century wide circles hhad begun to expect that art be innovative, break rules and. Provoke the protest of aging academy professors as well as the ‘ignorant masses’. Originally a curse, such forms of alienation now turned into a cherished adornment of art. As a result, dissenting antists were in a more advantageous situation and often praceeded to create an atmosphere of alienation around themselves, even if they hhad not been victimized by the declining academic powers In contrast 1 earlier refusé groups which had at least initially fought for integration im the official art world, the fin de elites studiously soughe to isolate themselves from it by means of esoteric Salons and Sevessions, sometimes ending up as petrified, official institutions in their own right.”” STOCK DEPOT, 2 rmsnaL FRSter bgsrursigateermee c Speman Sees ey ca. 1880, from a contemporary magazine. Divided as it was into an official academic and an ‘esoteric secessionist camp, this ‘high art? world provided the model for the construction ofa specifically photographic art world, undertaken by elitist amateur circles such as the Photo-Secession or the Linked Ring. In spite ofall imitative strategies, \dous Promotional efforts, the newly-emerging art photography however, and in spite of trem circuit remained a structurally anomalous project, one Which lacked certain essentials of a genuine art world, and consequently was denied recognition by and integration into the instivutior cculpture framework of painting a ‘The reaons are not far to sec Firat of al the wery nature ofthe photographic mem ingand edu, Whi was occasionally oflered on a tad schol feel the operation ofa camera involved to few dificult permit the emergence of a, fullfdgedseadonn reduced che significance of seho teaching 254 Hieron or PuoTucnarir, Vous, Nisan 4, Oovosre {snes 1988The Myth of Art Photography Figure 5. Walton chair (fram Die photographische Kunst isn Jahre 1902)system." And since no academic authority could establish itso, codified pictorial styles and aesthetic doctrines did not crystallize cither for some time (even though unenforced and unenforceable stylistic conventions did exist), ‘The elitist secession from the regular amateur clubs was thus fraught with ambiguities. While surrounding itself with anti-academic rhetoric borrowed from the painters’ Secessions in Europe, elitist Art Photography could never quite define what powerful enemy it rebelled against, and what official persecution it had to fear — after all, the exhibitions and publications of their ‘enemies’, ie,, the ordinary amatcur clubs, served only hobby purposes, and therefore carried no authority; not to mention that the elitists were more often worshipped than criticized by the common amateurs. In fact, there was such a pronounced authority vacuum in photography that the elitists wound ‘up clamouring for the institution of a photographic academy and wooing existing fine art’ institutions for recognition — ironically, without relinquishing their anti academic pose ‘Asecond anomaly of the art movement in photography arose from the fact that it always remained an amateur alfair, no matter how seriously ‘high art’ ambitions were pursued. The bottom line was that unlike, the Impress- ‘onists or the German ‘Secessions’, the elitist photo-clubs did not employ their separatist strategy in defence of vital economic interests, With a few exceptions their members were not only too wealthy, but also to0 much involved in their respective professional fields to look upon art photography as a means of making a living. Alfred Stieglitz, the heir of a fortune, even considered it as a defection from the ‘art’ cause when his financially less- privileged friends Steichen and Kasebier opened ‘commercial portrait studios. The fact that che same Stieglitz ‘made a point of selling and purchasing pictures to and from his colleagues is irrelevant here. The limited exchange of photographs, which thus took place among the pictorialists themselves, was not meant to produce an income, but simply to lend verifiable value and prestige to their Considering that educational institutions were superfluous and vital economic interests were not at stake in Are Photography, itis clear that the elitist photo-clubs hhad essentially just one purpose: to produce an honorific milieu, (o impart status to the select patticipants. Put blundy, elitist Are Photography was a more or less cosmnetic Proposition, one which stressed questions of appearance a the expense of substantive issues. Its ultimate goal was not the production of meaningful pictures, but the display. of photographs in ‘real’ art museuras Characteristically, Stieglitz devoted so much of his time to promotional efforts such as the organization of exclusive exhibitions and the editing of luxurious photo-magazines that his pictorial work was reduced to a trickle. That he mustered the ‘advertising skill of a P, T, Barnum’ was readily acknowledged by his friends." Somewhat provocatively, it could be said that his main conteibution to the history of photography was not the production of 256 pictures, but the construction of an institutional framework which certified these pictures as ‘art’ The various strategies employed toward this end will be analysed in the following paragraphs. The selection of Stieglitz and the Photo-Secession as the primary subjects ‘of study means that the American phase of Art Photography will be overemphasized at the expesise of parallel, but less thoroughly-researched developrs nts in Europe. In the long run, however, these tactics backfire. The Boston, New York and Philadelphia photo-clubs hcl been, initiated for leisure purposes. Up to certain point the members were prepared to participate in elitist ‘art? ‘exercises, but when the aesthetic standards ofthe leading figures such as Stieglitz, Kasebier or Day became too. rigorous, a majority saw itself deprived of exhibiting their pictures, winning medals and similar privileges. To be sure, these were only half serious pursuits, but they were lear to the average club members, and it proved unwise to make no further allowances for them. Tired of having their pictures rejected as ‘technically perfect, pictorially rotten’, the “tail-enders’, as 8. Hartmann called them, ‘eventually banded together and used their numerical superiority to wrest control of magazine editing. and. exhibition judging from the elitist clique.” By 1901, Stieglite’s attempt to transform organized American amateur photography as a whole into a “high art’ affair hhad ended in failure. Consequently, Stieglita changed tacties and proceeded to establish a small organization of his own, styled as.a Secession from the New York Camera Club, and consisting only of his closest fiends and admirers. A few months later, in January 1903, he launched Camara Werk, the mouthpiece of the new organization. Finally, the ‘Little Gallevies of the Photo-Secession’, were opened in 1906, and Stieglitz found himself in sole control of an autonomous and highly exclusive art circuit which comprised the production as well, as the literary criticism and exhibition of pictorial camera work. Already at the time described as a ‘photographie trust, it has few parallels in art history.” In the following analysis of this ingeniously orchestrated art world, we will distinguish between various aspects — the social activities, the exhibition system and the publication strategy of the Phato-Secession PHOTO-SECESSION: THE SOCIAL PHASE. While painters’ associations such as the Impressionists or the Secessions can best be described as professional interest groups with significant business agendas (opposing academic discrimination, obtaining government funds, creating market opportunities), the photo amateurs had exactly contrary goals: they wanted to get away irom their daily professional worries, Camera clubs were rec undertakings, they provided an outlet for the « instincts of their members, ie., they were soccs rather than business - oriented. The elitist photo associnsivis were no exceptions, even though they tried hard to fall» in the painters? footsteps. Characteristically, the Photo-Sccession was initiated by Stieglitz in ad-lib fashion withoor prior ational Histon ve Pastas: Voie, Nester 4 Oxronen a 188oe The Myth of Art Photography consulta: of the future members and without any seeinesscetngs or practial activities thereafter. To be se, State dd gore exhibitions ane edi mayazine UNION iITEANATIONALE DE PHOTO- Aiur dl Phota-Seeession label, at he aide sare dha Rare ise tin el er oh a © SESSION DE HANBOURS 1699 wep -ineontastcothe merry reunions ofthe popular oe ateur abs, they were permeated with esoerie avant garde cer mony. To on’ to put adistance between themselves and the crowd, 0) Secessionists liked ¢© style themselves in a Somenhs ‘ophomoric and halF-humorous way as modern Knight. of the Round Table’ (Seegl-Amfortas, Sicichen- ture, Hartmana-Klingsor, et). In allusion to this, ‘Par sal’ Coburn was once portrayed by Kerfoot with a Holy irail symbol (Figure 9). No wonder that members ip in the Photo-Secestion was regulated by a complica: id hierarchy including a director, a council of twelve (ain a reference to the Round Table; or even the New Tes nent), fellows and associated fellows. In the absence «practical business matters this whole elaborate structure -xisted only on paper, primarily serving the purpose « ‘lending special prestige to those in the inner circle STIEGLIYZ AND THE EVOLUTION OF ELITIST PHOTOGRAPHY Aired St. glitz started out in the 1880s as an average amateur psotographer, avidly studying the popular photo magazines whose trivial anecdotal style is reflected in his prize-wintong ‘Sleeping Shepherdesses', “Good Jokes’, ete: ‘As an ed or of one of these magazines, he was still connected so ordinary amateur photography in the early 1690s. Then, however, his career took a decisive turn, Stieglitz v ss elected t0 the Linked Ring Brotherhood, played a ‘ey role in the formation of the distinguished Camera Chub in New York and began to edit Camera Note = the clu.’s mouthpiece — along elitist lines. Besides, he was inatrvmental ia establishing a prestigious, however shorlived annual exhibition, the Philadelphia Salon, which war designed to represent the cream of American ‘Ant Photoraphy, following the example ofthe Linked Ring Salons in London." leas’. Stieglitz had begun to grapple with the formidai). cask of transforming a broad and somewhat speckled -rowd of weekend amateurs into an exclusive fraternity of devoted artists, As a knowledgeable observer sated in 1899, Stieglitz dreamed of nothing less than fining Final authority’ for the Camera Club and evelopin it into ‘a national academy of photography’ He hime later reminisced: ‘T had a mad idea that the Glu couic become the world center of photography and fventually create @ museum." ‘A che same ime, Stieglitz’ and his followers’ academic spirations found expression in a predilection for the ‘company of established artists from whom they hoped to ‘cute a glimmer of official approval. Their favourite was WM. Cinase, president of the Society of American Artists, ember of the prestigious Ten, recipient of countless sony ue Paorosanry, Vesna ®, Nunes 4, Oeromn Desiee196 Figure 2, Menu card, 1899 (Museum fir Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg) honours and awards — and, last but not least, a man with style, as indicated by his elegant attire, white wolfhound and black servant donning a robe and red fez. No wonder, therefore, that Chase was asked to serve as a judge for the ‘photographers’ first Philadelphia Salon of 1898, chat Stieglitz had his portrait painted by him, and that Steichen paid tribute to him in a photographic likeness of princely, allure (Figure 8). Needless to say, the idea of a photographic ‘academy" or ‘world centre’ was a political proposition, Hartmann, for one, saw very clearly that Stieglitz ‘wished to gain power, and he gained it — through the prosperity of the New York Camera Club, through the influence of Camera Notes, and most of all, by gathering round him all the competent artistic photographers of the country, and affording them an opportunity to become known." In ‘other words, Stieglitz ‘formed a clique’; and for a while it looked as if it would succeed in imposing ‘final authority’ 257The Myth of Art Photography Figure 9. J. B. Kerfoot, Silhouete of A, L, Coburn’ (Camera Work, No 8, Oct. 1904) on pictorial photography in the United States. Year by Year, Sticglitz and his adherents tightened their grip on the leading American amateur astociations, and year by Year they used their jury positions in order to increase their wn share in major exhibitions and to reduce the number of independent exhibitors, Ac the same time, they grew al in proclaiming their own artistic superiority, anybod) else's right to pass judgment in Pictorial mateers Of course, more or less informal Secession meetings tid take place from time to time, but that the location was Usually fine restaurant may call into question the Seriousness of their intentions. If photographic work was Submitted on such occasions, it seems to have been done 'n the form of a mutual admiration ceremony designed to Conitm each participant in his role asa distinguished artist (igure 10). Contemporary observers, at any rate, do not onvey the impression that more than that was involved. ‘To hear them discuss each other's work’, remarks a like hearing Van Dyck Munned visitor from England, ‘wa talk about Rubens — such marvellous power and beauty and revolutionary infh atributed to them." ence on the world of art were The disproportionately large number of portraits the secessionists took of each other is another indication that photography was largely a social entertainanent with them. To pay homage to each other in mutual portrait sessions developed into a consistent habit between Stieglits, Steichen, Coburn and their comrades. In most cases, impeccable clothes in the latest fashion and fine interior decoration provided an air of social distinction tothe sitter but sometimes fancy clothes and poses were employed to clevate the sitter even higher above the ordinary, see Day's portrait of Coburn as Jesus Christ (Figure 11). But the social sphere of the Photo-Secession extended beyond these private entertainments to a small exhibition space on New York's fashionable Fifth Avenue, What made the ‘Little Galleries" special apart fr the varyinig displays was the continued presence of a genius lo personified in Alfred Stieglitz, who ‘was always there, 259Figure 10. F. Eugene, The Tatsing Tro: Stiglite, Kin and Steichen, 1907°, 122 x 168 mom (Metropolitan Museum, New York) talking, talking, talking; talking in parables, arguing, explaining. He was a photographer, a preacher, a teacher, and a father-confessor.” (Steichen) Here we encounter one of the primary reasons for Stieglita's success in creating an elaborate art world of his ‘own. Above and beyond his flair for organization he was a highly talented communicator, and he made extensive use of his persuasiveness in order to impart to the “Photo- Secession, realm what is generally the most important ingredient in any institutional framework: ideological unity. In keeping with the overall character of Art Photography, this unity did not primarily manifest itself in substantive concerns such as artistic styles and theories, but rather in a more cosmetic trend toward social and spiritual exclusiveness, away from the ‘Philistine’ and ‘the ‘masses’.” From an inquiry published in Camera Work in July 1914 we know that visitors experienced Stieglitz’s headquarters essentially as ‘a litle craft, a lone speck on the high seas’, and as a ‘refuge’, or ‘oasis’ for ‘those sincere, those thirsty ones’. The same desire to stand apart from, rather than to stand for something, is apparent in Kerfoot's official definition of Photo-Secessionism, according 10 which the group ‘now finds itself ‘maintaining an island of refuge for art amid the traffic of 260 ‘an essentially photographic philistinism. It started as a forlorn hope. It finds itself one division of a desperate, but not despicable, army." In the centre of this esoteric realm, Stieglitz posed not fas the great promoter/communicator that he was, but in the more sublime guise of the revolutionary genius who ‘shatters photographic idols’ and who ‘strives against existing rules until he overthrows them’; a lone ‘seeker of truth’, persecuted and ridiculed by the ignorant masses and sharing his lifeblood with a few select fellow spirits.” The following lines, written by him in 1903 — ironically in the profane context of a Bausch & Lomb advertisement brochure for mass consumption — give a good example of this almost messianic self interpretation: In all phases of human activity the tendency of the masses has been invariably towards ultra conservatism, Progress has been accomplished only by reason of the fanatical enthusiasm of the evolutionist, whose extreme teaching has saved the mass from utter inertia... In this country photography also has followed this law. ‘As mentioned earlier, in fin-de-sitle aesthetic circles, weaving such romantic myths had become a cherished habit and an important supplement to — if nota substitutePigse 12. FH. Day (2), 'A. L. Coburn as Jesus Chris ony or Pavrean, Vou Nisan 4 Octovt Decehes 1964 264 x 205 mm (George Eastman House, Rochester) 261ULF. Keller for — artistic production. In Stieglite's case, as in many others, however, there was a noticeable discrepancy between myth and reality. As we shall se later, his pictures conformed to a conventional ideal of beauty; much in contrast to Cézanne's or Picasso's works, they were eagerly published by the illustratee| magazines ofthe time, and the masses admired and imitated them devotedly. All in all, i¢ can be said that secessionism became something of a game for Stieglitz and his tribe, and since it was carried on ostentatiously and arrogantly, it is no ‘wonder that even their best friends could not refrain from challenging this behaviour at one point or another. After years of acquiescence, S, Hartmann was the first, in 1904, to pour his venom on the ‘Little Tin Gods on Wheels’ and to ridicule ‘the grand air with which they took life! How they toss their locks of vigorous hair and drag about huge portfolios of prints with the air of martyrs’. In addition, Hartmann attacked the Secessionists’ hunger for supreme authority, likening ic the cult around ‘Gesslet's Hat’ and. adding a cartoon so as to leave no doubt whose pretensions he had in mind (Figure 12).*' A year later, the prominent Photo critic R. Rood, too, was ready to protest It has often struck me that as a class pictorial Photographers present a most conceited appearance; they are so full of themselves; and so sensitive! even unto touchiness; and they do so lay down the law . . . And their long hair and flaring ccravats, which they imagine must stamp them in the eyes of everyone as being geniuses... And the exaggerated and intense earnestness! Why is it alee But the flamboyant display of provocative behaviour was just a minor aspect of elitist Art Photography. Its high public profile largely depended on more effective strategies, especially the organization of exhibitions, PHOTO-SECESSIONISM: THE EXHIBITION PHASE While the amateur photographers were fond of showing their work wherever an opportunity came up — for example, in club rooms, museums, world expositions or specially rented facilities — they had to live with the fact that nobody took their exhibition activities altogether seriously. This lack of status was only aggravated by the support of the photo-industey, which organized or contributed financially to many amateur exhibitions as convenient vehicles for the advertisement of technical equipment (compare Figures 13, 14). It is true, of course, that museums occasionally opened their doors to antistically-informed amateur photography, but they usually stopped short of buying any of the pictures shown, and art dealers remained similarly disinterested. Thus, even the most distinguished photographic Salons were deprived of the link between display and sale which alone could have guaranteed the ‘seriousness’ of the exhibition, Only once was a determined attempt made to forge the jing link. This was in 1904, when C. Bell of the New York Salon Club (a rival group to Stieglita's Photo Secession) planned to hire ‘a good salesman’ in order to 262 stimulate picture sales during the “First Am Photographic Salon’ of that year. “This woule a raion d’tre for these everlasting photographic. hibicgns ‘The pictorialist would begin to feel himself. 2 wore whose artistic output fulfilled some demand. nd hed be regarded no longer as a mere pastime" Noth came of the idea, however, and the art photog) phers ont? real market continued to be inthe field of popis + mageins iMustration, where theie pictures fetched bet» $5.00 an $15.00, eee be at leat Since it proved impossible to give the exh’ sion circu ‘an economic dimension, the elitist circles hac. «be contest to emphasize the seriousness of their shows -y symbol means, i.e., by styling them as exclusive vant garde events, Apart from attaching great impor nce to the decorative ‘packaging’ of their pictures (Le., ws derscoring their “choiceness’ by exquisite wallpapers. ames and mats") Stieglitz and bis friends made. point of demanding that consumer produets and art hotographs be assigned to strictly separate facilities — industrial expositions (for example, in St Louis, 1904). |. cthermore, the Photo-Secessionists consistently attemy dither to exclude artistically less ‘advanced” rival voups and ‘utilitarian’ photographers from the exhily ns, or, at Teast, to reserve for themselves a separate sev un exempt from jury censure. If such attempts failed, elite was prone (0 withdraw from participation with - snsiderable noise ~ a habit which was facilitated by the ct that the overabundance of photographic exhibition «portunities made a selective approach mandatory in ar. event, ‘As successfully as the Stiegltecirele, in ivtation of the painters’ secessions, passed itself off as a iuligned and Persecuted minority, there can be little dou! - chat it was in face the aggressor, rather than the vietim »! allegedly so intolerant opponents. Ch. Caffin sugg: + sl as much when he polemicized repeatedly again: ke Photo: Secession’s display of ‘too much ega’, th pushing of arguments, rather than buttons’ and the “arti sll created role’ of being ‘martyrs’ exposed to the ‘vi’ antipathy of outsiders’. How lietle these caret!» nurtured hostilities had to do with real differences «1 setstic style and quality, has recently been point» out by S. Greenough.” ‘Two Stieglitz letters of 1910 can give“ a concrete illustration of elitist strategies. Having 'y-» invited 1 organize a major show of pictorial phn phy at the Albright-Knox Gallery in Bulfalo, Stiegl” vas asked by W. Zimmerman to co-operate with thy Philadelphia Photographic Society and to concede to it « v-free section of the kind the Photo-Secession had alwas -manded for itself. Stieglitz refused the appavently polis quest in ao insulting manner, accusing Zirnmerm an able pictorialist — of nor secking the rruth, bc a narrow Vision and belonging to “those stupte doing ‘everything in theie power to disgust all se talent More than that: “I know the ery of the tag for fai play and mob representation . Getting ser" in your sense means endless ewaddle in endless mes 1s, a waste fof funds, 4 waste of time and energy.” § inded the 4 a| | | ‘correspondence with another thundering insult; “Those seeking my help do not generally know what they themselves want. And those who do not even know as much 4 that can never be helped to anything by oblivion. Since the days of Lichtwark’s broad-minded aesthetic reform efforts, Art Photography had undergone a striking tansformation, indeed PHOTO-SECESSIONISM: THE PUBLICATION PHASE The art photographers’ publication network evolved in dose connection with their exhibition activities, and out Of the sam roots: the popular amateur movement. By the 1890s a broad array of photographic amateur magazines, ‘pplemented by manuals and exhibition catalogues, had ushroomed into existence, largely serving the purpose ofadvertising photographic equipment and offering advice {oncerning its proper technical and aesthetic application. When the elitist photographers appeared on the scene, they ficed the problem of transforming these trivial amateut Publications into vehicles of ‘serious’ ar criticism, eapable ‘competing with renowned contemporary art magazines Rke Pan or The Stale. * rons or Proroceany. Vues, Nowaes , Qctoaek Dicom 1984 The Myth of Art Photography Figure 12, Gassler's hat (from Camera, Vel. 8, 1904) ‘The art photographers effectively approached the problem by giving their books and periodicals exquisite bibliophile quality, and insisting especially on the finest available gravure reproductions. At the time when the cheap and practical, yet aesthetically still unsatisfactory halftone process began to monopolize book and magazine illustration, the pictorialists’ publications were, thus, already by their picture quality characterized as channels of a ‘high art’ discourse.°° ‘The manner in which the precious bibliophile framework automatically imparted (and continues to impart) ‘art’ status to every image introduced into it can be studied in a surprisingly large ‘number of elite publications such as Camera Notes, Camera Work and Photo Era in the USA., Wiener photographische Blatter, Pholographische Rundschau, Die Kunst in der Photographie (Figure 15) in the German speaking countries, La Fotografia Artista in Iealy, the Bulletin of the Photo-Club de Paris, France, the Photographic Art Journal in England and many ‘others, not to mention the sizeable output of sumptuous ‘exhibition catalogues, surveys and histories of pictorial photography. Serious ‘art critical’ content was more important, though, than bibliophile presentation. Before this aspect 263Figure 13. Advertisement for amateur exhibition, sponsored by Kodak Ltd, London 1904 (Co of the art photographic publication activities can be discussed, a word about the social function of att criicisin is in order. Moder art criticism as it emerged during the 18th-century had two basic characteristics. It was written for the benefit of the public, that large and anonymous body of people who lived to0 far from the studios and had too litle expertise to make aesthetic judgments of their own, and it was interpretive, aiming at the understanding of great art works and explaining their ‘original’ features to the public As much as photo criticism liked to affect the gesture of ‘high art’ criticism, in substance it never came close to its model. Photo critics simply could not ignore the fact that their readership consisted almost exclusively of, amateur photographers in need of aesthetic guidance. As S, Hartmann declared unequivocally: ‘The photographer ‘must go outside his profession and enter the province of the painter. The wielders of the brush must be his teachers.”" And the critic — so we may conclude Hartmann’s train of thought — must be the mediator between photographer and painter. Based on these premises, photo criticisin necessarily acquired a normative or legislative, rather than interpretive flavour. The leading 264 the other ways [the er =r cd pity mn authors tended to talk down to their rea heights of those initiated into “real” art. W) such as ‘breadth’, tossed around, it was nat to describe nev aspects in art photography, but to demonste' standards of taste had either been met or amateurs. In either ease the discussion w photographic one without relevance for the g With remarkable bluntness, Hartmann once ce private oral for the usual pri ‘Verbal criticism, such as practised at privat. exhibitions in the clubs, is use analyzing nonentities for the public. The unresolvable contradictions of pho: art’ mode are perhaps most le ‘harmony’ 1D, Fuguer’s writings. In theory, Foguet su mainstream definition of 1Sth-century arte issue with the ‘prevalent oni guide and teach the artist’, he asserted in ! wtesy Eastman K. by far preferable il is to teach the ps The latter acts a between art and the public,” In practice, hows Ca) from the concepts id original that existing | issed by the an internal «cneral public fen proposed ced reviews lantern slide Phere is no shibited in ibed to the im. Taking eis jus I is the ideas and mediator +, Fuguet a 198 ee men nna NN: cE (The Myth of Art Photography Figure 14, Payer of amateur exhibition sponsored by Kodak Ld atthe ‘New Galley’, London, 1897 (Courtesy Eastman Kodak Co,) largely visregarded these principles. Instead of addressing the public he addressed the photographers, and instead of. interpresing the meaning ef pictures he laid down rules for the proc uction of pictures, pondering on ‘permissible’ and nom-permissible ways of imitating ‘the past masters’, ‘encourging his readers to Iearn “the lessons of the pleix of ar Generally speaking, photo-critical writings excelled in Aoctrina logy, even excepting those numerous publicacions which really were ‘how-to" manuals in high flown disguise, And the safer and simpler the rules, the ‘more aurhoritative became the author's tone, suggesting that the primary function of such criticism was not to fc” in painting, or discussing the ‘immutable lews" tilighten the reader, but to raise the author's prestige Emphatic imperatives were indeed « tademark of elise magazines, helping to certify their superiority to regular amateur publications, Photography the very dogmatism that the elitist circles élaimed to oppose Bue there was still another problem. While ‘high ar?” Cttcism was an autonomous institution, mediating but also introducing into arony or Porocaanny, Vouune , Nuwar 4, Qcrowee Dera 198 between the artists and the public without belonging to cither ofthese groups, most art photographic publications ‘were not only edited by the photographers themselves, but also filled with their own ‘critical’ writings, To be sure, there were a few professional photo critics such as S Hartmann, R. Rood and Ch. Gaffin, but since they were commissioned and paid by an interested party (the photographer/editor), they were less independent than most of their ‘high art” colleagues. S. Hartmann openly complained in 1904 that the Photo-Secessionists had ‘tried to dictate to me”, and while this accusation was made in an emotionally-turbulent situation, it may not have been altogether unfounded. Notwithstanding the sizeable contribution of professional critics like Hartmana, the fact remains that most photo-critical writings were authored by the photographers themselves, who thus enjoyed the unprecedented privilege of being the atbiters of their own. fame. Not surprisingly, they proved to be less than objective judges, heaping exaggerated praise on each other and perverting the photo-critical discourse into a farce. As J. Pennell maliciously remarked in 1897: ‘It has been left 265Be The Moth of Art Photography Figure 16. Front and back cover, Camera Work, No, # (Oct. 1903) for the photographers themselves to criticize their shows, land their erticism is based upon no other standard than their oven wishes." Camera Work, while occasionally coming close to genuine criticism, especially im connected t© photography, ilustration of the point. Most photographers reviewed here Were part of a social ‘set’ interconnected by multiple practical dealings and personal friendships. Hinton England; KGhn in Austria; Puyo and Demachy in France; Steichen, Coburn, Keiley and Kisebier in America were ‘activists’ like Stig organized and judged exhibitions, they wrote for and in some cases were editors of photo magazines; and an active intercontinental travel schedule Kept chem in constant personal cont: articles only loosely is nevertheless a good cz; they 1. In short, they were linked to each other rot only as artists, but also as the promoters and critics of their own pictures. necessarily became one of reciprocated favours. To put it crudely: a review by A about B was answered with a review by B about A; and if A made sure to include B's pictures in an exhibition in London, B took care to include A’s Pictures in a shows in New York. Alseady in 1900 the Photo American satirized this practice in a “comedy in two acts’, Which featured an exchange of laudatory reviews between, As a result, their relationship Messr.s Litstig and Keely (se., Stieglitz and Keiley).*” In view of such dubious publicity tacties, Camera Work should be studied with reservations. According to recent investigations, the American Art Photography scene was ‘much more diversified than can be gathered from its pages. And everyone superficially familiar with the European situation knows that it was even more inadequately reflected in Camera Work2* Contrary to what it set out do, it did not become the ultimate synthesis of international Aet Photography; it simply was the mouthpiece of one particular group of photographers. In this content it should be remembered that the total output of art photographic magazines was one of bewildering diversity. Not only did every country have its own national Art Photography movement, but at least in Germany, France, England and America these national movements were subdivided into rival groups, And, associations, these were unstable within themselves, periodically undergoing sudden personnel changes (and consequent reversals in editorial policies, as far as the magazines were concerned), As a result, the perusal of art photographic publications reveals countless and only partially overlapping sets of photographic ‘masters’ who ‘were promoted by the various periodicals at a given time, cach publishing its own magazine. like all amateur 267Figure 17. Invitational section of Kodak amatew show, London, 1897 (Courtesy Eastman Kodak Co.) only to be replaced by new sets af masters five or ten years later (Stieglitz being one of the most volatile editors).** Personal reputations were not only made overnight (as W Naef pointed out); they also were lost very quickly — which is nothing surprising, of course, in an easily-accessible nateur medium.® For the historian, however, it means that a truly representative selection of ‘masters’ may be clusive and may, at any rate, lead to questionable results as long asit is guided by the self-serving ‘criticism’ of one particular group among the art photographers themselves, THE ROLE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC INDUSTRY Allin all, it can be said that the art photographers were remarkably successful at setting up their own ‘att world? In fact, the history of art knows no other group of artists who were in control of similarly plentiful exhibition ‘opportunities and luxurious publication organs, How can the luscious growth of chis costly support system be explained, especially fit is true that its purpose was more ‘cosmetic than real? 268 Here we need to consider a basic economic disference between the traditional arts and photagraphy. In voncrast to brush and canvas, cameras and films are sophisticated and expensive goods, and following the technical improvements of the 1880s they were mass-mansfactured by big industrial firms such as Eastinan Kodak or Zeiss. In secking to expand their markets, these firms were quick to realize that the growth of ‘artistic’ aspirations among photo amateurs automatically translated into increased sales of photographic equipment. No wonder, therefore, that such companies decided to support Art Photography not only by financing the amateur magazines chrough advertisements (Figure 16), but also by organizing, -mateut exhibitions which largely consisted oF innocuous siapshots, but usually included ‘artistic’ sections for th. elitist photographer behind this generous sponsors Figure 17). ‘The strategic purpose Wf Art Photogray ay was, of course, to persuade the ordinary amateur tha: he (00 could produce ‘artistic’ wonders — if he only invested enough money in technical equipment. The advertements ciate CRA NSE ee - mRDo you appreciate its pictorial possibilities? Steichen does NEPERA DIVISION Eastman Kodak Company Rochester, N. ¥. ACL th eae fora apy of he Vela in Figures 18 and 19 provide self-explanatory illustrations of this strategy. This is not to say that the photo industey influenced foany considerable degree what was photographed, ot how (as long as it was ‘art’, demonstrating the effectiveness of expensive equipment). But it is obvious that the massive Suppor’ ofthe big manufacturers blew an essentially modest and sarginal amateur movement out of proportion, lending i¢ for commercial ends a much more lavish exhibition and publication service than it could have attained on the basis of its artistic merits alone. Put dllferestty, the photo industry's support produced a Prsunisication effect which made Art Photography appear Pigger chan it actually was — constituting grounds for a historical re-evaluation of the movement. As far as the leading figures of Are Photography are Concerned, they owed not only their powerful positions as ‘magazine editors and exhibition organizers, but also their tate star status to the backing ofthe equipment industry nei ‘of these roles even the most esoteric Secessionists let themselves unwittingly be used for profane Burposes, even though itis likely that a least those among them who were in the direct employ of the industry were Jess naive than others about their doings. Tn any case, commercial The Myth of Art Photography Figure 18, Velox advertisement (fiom Camera Work, No. 17, Jan. 1907) it can be said that the elitists’ objective function was at variance with their subjective understanding oft, Conttary to what Stieglitz and his friends believed, they were not revolutionary outcasts ridiculed by the masses, but rather pilot consumers of photographic equipment and trend. setters for popular photographic styles How well, indeed, Stieglit's pictures were suited to {encourage the average camera bul in his ‘artistic’ pursuits, icc., how perfectly his pictures conformed to commonplace notions of pictorial beauty is underscored by the fact that they were not only constantly reproduced in amateur manuals and in photographic journals of all descriptions, but also in mass circulation magazines such as Harpers’ Serina’'s and Contry which would have scoffed at featuring Cézanne's or Matisse's genuinely innovative work ® In spite of elitist rhetoric — or perhaps because it gave his Pictures additional ‘high art’ credibility — Stieglite was ‘an eminently popular photographer, and it was notorious that he and the other Secessionists had ‘imitators galore’™ — which was exactly what the photo industry had in mind when it promoted Art Photography. “Winter, Fifth Avenue’ is an excellent example of the point under discussion (Figure 20). Widely exhibited, reproduced and acclaimed — among other things ie 269STE — TO WHE Do XU ainsi “YouR si iT [ATES © PABER, OF a FLLIOTT &SONS LP HERTS. Figure 19. Elliott & Sons advertisement (from American Amateur Photographer, Vol. 16, 1904)Figure 20. A. Stegite, ‘Winter, Fifth Avenue’, osrony or Puorocnatnr. Vous, Nose 4, Ocromn Deca 1984 The Myth of Art Photography 1902 (from Camera Work, No. 12, Oct. 1905) 2amty John Beeby, Figure 21. J. Beeby, ‘The Old Stage’ (from Photograms of the Year 1905) 272 Hoorony oF Puorockani, Vouue 8, Nowe 4, Octontn Devens 84Nitec enenm a received first prize in an amateur competition sponsored by Brusch and Lomb — it exerted considerable influence fon th, large army of American amateur photographers. Almnc-t identical imitations were made all across the conti ont (Figure 21), and even in Britain the subject gaine” such notoriety that the London Amateur Photographer made « point of dating a reproduction of the original ‘not 39 much in order to secure for Me Stieglitz any particular honour for priority as co protect him from the possible charge of plagiarism.” Surely, the problem was not that Stieglitz was misunclerstood by the masses, but that it was too easy t0 understand and imitate him. He and his circle were ‘in the swim", putting picturesque subjects into universal circulation, thus increasing both the production of images and the consumption of equipment. It was for this service that the means of building a complete photographic art world were put at their disposal by the photo industry. ‘The latter considerations have led us to the subject of art photographic picture-making itself, rather than the institutional framework around it, but we must save this iconographie inquiry for a follow-up article, In the present context we only can sum up that the pictorialists devoted, an amazing amount of work to promotional matters — ultimately, that is, to the manufacture of their own fame ‘Their best energies were thus absorbed by the construction, of a prestige-oriented pseudo art world, which, in historical retrospective, falls woefully short of the legitimate and fanctional support institutions in the field of painting and sculprure® This anicle is dedicated to Robert J. Doherty, on the ccasion of his 60th birthday, in recognition of his contributions to the field of photo-history REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. An eutier manuscript versio ofthis article recived the 1980 ‘DaguerrePreie’ of the Club Daguerre, Frankfurt, TR Germany. T want to thank Linda McCausland, Bebra Larwood and Mona Rasmussen for technical aston (Rote Due to lack of space few riences wl be give © ft historeal background literature.) 2 J. Ganon, Artie Houses, The Sia, Vol. 1 (1883), p 215. The following quote hi, p. 20. 4. For commercial stad photography, early art photography, the phototechnial innovations of thc 1800 snd thers of anzteur photography see Hand A. Granting Te Hey {f Psigephy frm the Caca Obcara te th Begining of te Matos om Rew and enlarged ed, MeGraw-Fil, New York (1869), lao sce"B. Com and’ Ps Gave, The naps Piroph The Rin of popular Phtepaply 1689-1959, doh & Gran, Landon (1977), Gersheim, loc cit, p. 424 5. Anescan Anatear Paorspen, Vol. 1 (July 1889), p 5. 6. See PH, Enensox, Naturalistic Photography for Students of the 41, Sampaon Low, London (1809). 1440, 209282 {A.J Avoxsson, The Atte Sie of Potgrphy ia Thay and Becta, Stanley Pas, London (1910) pe 207 F Uorsonen, Die Bildnr-Phetceraphi«. Ein’ Wepecier for Hvorvor Phonconaty, Vou 8, Nunata 4, Ocrot Deseutee 198 10. 12 13. 14 15. 16. 12. The Myth of Art Photography Echina nd Litho, Schmidt, Best ((903), passim: G. Kasuatte, Studies Photography, Ploteraph Fines, Vol 30 June 1898), p. 270 Characterisically, the art ambitions of the amateur Photographers received much atention in contemporary Artvand:Crafs and Arc Nowveau magazine uch ay The Sti in Englanl (for exatuple, Vl. 1, (1893), p. 8 My The Graf in America and Ver Sacrum in Austra (lor example, Vol. 1 (Apil 1898), noe paginated). F. Marrm-Masunen, Bin Beitrag cor Sebsterzchung des Photographen, Die Phase Rua in fe 1902, p18 On p. 51 the portrait photographers ae fvited vo read the contemporary Arts-and Crafts magaeincs A Licwwant, Die Beating der Araturpbioerphie, Knapp, Halle a.S. (1898), p. 4 Mf for German Art Phowogeapky, diletanism and aetheie reform also see U, Petes, Silecicte der Foogafe rn Dexrchland 1839-1900, Dumont, Gologne (1979), p. 277 3 W. Waasear, Die Ruteruke Photogrphie. ve Enticing, ihe Probone, the Badetun, ‘Teubner, Leipeig (1919), p35; H. Seon, Portrait Rat in der Phtogrphie- rove, Liesegang, Leipzig (1924, first ed. 1809), _p. Ii, and. several articles on “Kiunsiphotographie in De Kuntar and Deche Kanat und Daberation, 18981900. Lichwark stated dearly: ‘We did not plan an elice ‘hibiton." Accordingly, only afew obviously poor pictures ‘were rejected by the Jury (Lichewark, locity p. 4, 31), Die phoographiscte Kunst im Jule 1902, p. V; also see U. Kris, Die deusche Portatfotograie von 1918 bis 1933, dn U. Keller, H. Molderings and W. Ranke (es. Binge 21 Gach and dada der Fao, second ed. Anaad, Lahn-Giessen (1979), p. 37 f Photo Bacon, Vo. 16, Jan. 1904 and f months See Zits ntratonal Javeszusslng won Kusphlogaphin, exh, cat, Geselschae zur Porderang det Amateur ‘Photographie, Hamburg (1903). The show was restricted to 4 small number of invited elitist photographers A. Gus, drt ud th Camera, George Ball, London (1907), p-3t Linked Ring: M. Harken, The Lind Ring. The Sesion ‘Mewenent in Photography in Britain, 1892-1910, Heineman, London (1979); the Slee and similar American groups: Dory, Photo Sesion: Sige andthe Binedet Movonent i Photgrapiy, Dover, New York (1978; frst publ. 1960) p. 96; for the Photo Serasion itu ae note 32; the Trifolium A. Buscimeck, Das Tufolivm des Wiener Camera-Club, Gamere-Kunst. Eine Inlemationle Sammtunge son Kuni phaogaphin de Nec, by P. Loceshet and B. Juhl, Schone, Berlin (1903), p. 17 Phetographisce Randchen, Vol. 5 (May 1891), p. 165 Cosmpelite, Vol. 12 (Feb. 1892), p. 433. J.T. Kuszy, The Linked Ring, Caner Nets, Vol. 5 (Oct 1901), p. HME For other Salons see the numerous Salon eatalogues cited by W. Nast, The Calin of Af Stage ify Pines of Moers Phtography, Viking Press, New ¥ ork (1978), p. 511 slo se W. 1. Homen, Aled Stilt end the Pio Scena, NY Graphic Society, Beaton (1963), p- 3 f Nach, feet, p. 258. There were exceptions like Steichen, the son of a mine worker, but only unusual socal talents enabled him t overcome this handicap, The less fortunate . Martin had to switch from artistic journalistic work ‘1 was for a time’as keen ab anyone but it was an expensive hobby. (P. Manz, Petorian Sept, Country Lite, London (1999), p. 18.) The socal composition andthe sumpruousresidenees of the Vienna Camera Chub: Wiener Photnraphince Ble, Vol 1 (1898), p. 20813 Vol. 4 (1897), p22 273