Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1903 (Heft 2))

value would not have suffered by its having been intelligently manipulated.
Were an etching to look like a painting, of what avail would be the choice
of the medium? In all of Rembrandt's work there are common characteristics
which distinguish his work from that of any other master, but his etchings
have certain qualities peculiar to the medium and not to be found in his
painting. Doubtless an etcher is the best judge of those qualities which give
character and value to an etching.
IF photography deserves recognition it is not because it resembles some
other medium of art, but because it has character and quality of its own,
without which it would be no more than a cheap imposition. These
qualities can be discovered only by the photographers who are artists, or by
" artists,, who are photographers, and on this ground is based our plea for
photographer-jurors who have proven themselves thus qualified, of whom,
unfortunately, there are too few.
IN a recent exhibition in one of our large cities the jury was composed of
five " artists," men of skill in their own fields, and of varied artistic culture.
They were generous enough to treat the matter seriously, and to give their
time to the careful examination of some fourteen hundred prints, from which
they finally selected one hundred and ninety. The exhibition was interesting
and refined, and contained much promising material, as well as a number of
pictures of distinct photographic value. But in what position did the jury
find itself? Admitting that they were ignorant of photographic methods and
technique, how should they know whether the prints were " legitimate" or
“faked,” or even whether the camera had been employed in producing a
result so different from all the accepted ideas of photography ? Some
standard was necessary on which to act, and the jury felt compelled to decide
how far it was legitimate to manipulate in photography! The print which
brought about this crisis was a " gum,” for possession of which a photographer
had, previously made an offer, yet the jury rejected it on the grounds that it
was not a photograph. Here was no question of artistic feeling — that
might have been open to differences of opinion, as it is not often that
any picture meets with unanimous appreciation—but one solely of the
characteristics of the medium employed, a subject which photographers alone
would be prepared to debate.
THE emancipation of pictorial photography in the past, and its hope in
the future, lie directly in the freedom to manipulate, within photographic
bounds, a print or negative. It is not clearly established whether any
means is not legitimate which does not go so far as to dispense entirely with
the camera in the first instance or to introduce foreign material, such as
paint or pencil, to assist in giving character or completeness to the print.
When the happy time arrives that more “artists” include photography
among their various means of interpretation, and “photographers” broaden
their vision by using other mediums of artistic expression as well as
photography, this little matter, which is so important now, will be buried
along with those other discussions which seem so idle when their day is past.
Eva Watson-Schütze.

47