Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1903 (Heft 1))

THE following is a quotation from Mr. Strauss’s reply:

I am indeed pleased to receive your letter of
the 21st inst., because it evidences a decided in-
terest in photographic display, and it is gratifying
to know that you regard an artistic exhibit one
to be desired.
However, the premise on which your argu-
ment is based is in error as to some points of
fact. The subject of the proper representation
of Art in Photography at our World’s Fair was
first suggested in a letter written by me last July
to Governor Francis. The essential points in
the plan outlined by me were :
“ Have a pavilion devoted exclusively to
pictures produced by Photography, provided
same give evidence of artistic feeling. The

display of pictures should be along Salon lines;
that is to say, only such should be exhibited as
are considered worthy by a competent commit-
tee of artists—not photographers. No distinction
to be made between amateurs and professionals."
You will see that the request made last July,
and it was encouragingly received by Governor
Francis, was identical with that now made,
except that some months later the Executive
Committee of the Exposition rejected the
“ separate-pavilion ’’ idea on the ground of cost,
and we have since substituted “ Art Building
for Art Photography." At no time did the
Association of America, or any other body ot
photographers, offer to pay for the pavilion.

SO the issue now seems to be between the Fine Arts Building and the Liberal
Arts Building as the locale for the display of pictorial photography, with a
probability that the latter will be insisted upon by the authorities, and that
the photographers who are trying to raise their craft to an art will hold aloof.
LET us consider the precedents for and against the decision of the
authorities. The Chicago World’s Fair relegated photographic prints to
the Liberal Arts Building; but that was ten years ago when the pictorial
photograph, as we know it now, did not yet exist; the Universal Exposition
of 1900 and the Pan-American both ignored the claims of some photographic
prints to be recognized as pictures; consequently all the best photographers
held aloof, and photography in its highest phase was not represented.
On the other, the promoters of the Glasgow Exhibition of last year showed
themselves alive to the significance of the new movement, and their
international exhibit of pictorial photography in the Fine Arts Building was
a notable one. This year's Exposition at Turin shows a similar recognition
of the status of the pictorial print, while at the current exhibition of the
Champs de Mars some photographs for the first time went before the jury and
were judged on their merit as pictures. They were accepted, and are now on
exhibition among the black-and-white work in the same Grand Palais from
which they were excluded at the Paris Exposition two years ago.¹ So, if we
leave out of account the Chicago Exposition as being itself prior to the
modern movement in photography, we find Paris (1900) and Buffalo (1901)
the precedents against; Glasgow (1901), Turin (1902), and Paris (1902) the
precedents for.² This would seem to be an accumulation of precedent in
favor of giving pictorial photography a place in the Fine Arts Building. So
that it is not pictorial photography that is now on its defense, but the St. Louis
Exposition. Will the latter really prove itself to be in the van of latest

¹ This was written before it became known that Mr. Steichen’sprints, the photographs referred to, were not hung
in spite of their acceptance—a result of intrigue which can not lessen the official recognition accorded to photography as a
fine art by the Salon Jury.— Editors.
² The “Secession” of Vienna, a most powerful association of modern artists, this year also opened its doors to
pictorial photographs and accepted prints by Henneberg, Watzek, Kühn and Spitzer, the four most famous Austrian
photographers.— Editors.

39