DOI Artikel:
Editors, Juries and Judges
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29979#0064
- Startseite des Bandes
- Alle zugehörigen Werke
- art journals – Kunst- und Satirezeitschriften
- Camera Work auf arthistoricum.net
- Register
- Editorial
- Informationen zur Zeitschrift
Für diese Seite ist auch eine manuell angefertigte Transkription bzw. Edition verfügbar. Bitte wechseln Sie dafür zum Reiter "Transkription" oder "Edition".
JURIES AND JUDGES.
WHEN IN the past our voice has been heard in advocacy of
photographers as judges and of juries composed of such, we
supposed that no one would interpret this literally. Yet
such has been the case, and we have recently found ourselves
accused of having made the absurd assertion that from all
those practicing pictorial photography could be drawn jurors more competent
to judge than any painters. Such folly was far from our thoughts; but we did
and still do believe that such pictorial photographers as have demonstrated
by their works to the satisfaction alike of artists, art-critics, photographers
and the general public, at home and abroad, that the knowledge, taste and
feeling of the artist are theirs, are certainly more competent to judge the
merits of a photographic print than would the average jury of painters and
sculptors ignorant of photographic technique. Given a jury of painters, etc.,
familiar with the processes, scope and limitations of photography and them-
selves imbued with the full spirit of art, untrammeled by convention or
prejudice, we stand ready to hail them as the ideal jury.
UNTIL the day comes when the services of such a jury can be procured,
we stand firmly on the ground that photographers like Steichen, Eugene,
White, Käsebier, Henneberg, Kühn, Watzek, Craig Annan and others, are
immeasurably better judges of pictorial photography than the average run
of painters and sculptors, whose sense of humor often keeps them from
taking their own art seriously; and unfortunately of such some recent juries
have been. Thus we have on the one hand, those serious photographic
workers having faith in their medium of art, equipped with artistic percep-
tion and training, and on the other, men who view their art mainly as a
medium of pecuniary profit. Such, alas, has been our experience, for those
artists whose judgment would command the highest respect, have rarely shown
more interest in the subject than to allow their names to be conjured with on
the list of jurors, when in reality they have taken no active part in arriving
at the verdict. Not only do photographers fool themselves and the general
public by invoking the aid of such as these, but they are aiding, perhaps
unintentionally, in making the claims of pictorial photography ridiculous in
the eyes of the very men who lend the prestige of their names to a cause,
in which, as yet, they do not believe.
Editors.
48
WHEN IN the past our voice has been heard in advocacy of
photographers as judges and of juries composed of such, we
supposed that no one would interpret this literally. Yet
such has been the case, and we have recently found ourselves
accused of having made the absurd assertion that from all
those practicing pictorial photography could be drawn jurors more competent
to judge than any painters. Such folly was far from our thoughts; but we did
and still do believe that such pictorial photographers as have demonstrated
by their works to the satisfaction alike of artists, art-critics, photographers
and the general public, at home and abroad, that the knowledge, taste and
feeling of the artist are theirs, are certainly more competent to judge the
merits of a photographic print than would the average jury of painters and
sculptors ignorant of photographic technique. Given a jury of painters, etc.,
familiar with the processes, scope and limitations of photography and them-
selves imbued with the full spirit of art, untrammeled by convention or
prejudice, we stand ready to hail them as the ideal jury.
UNTIL the day comes when the services of such a jury can be procured,
we stand firmly on the ground that photographers like Steichen, Eugene,
White, Käsebier, Henneberg, Kühn, Watzek, Craig Annan and others, are
immeasurably better judges of pictorial photography than the average run
of painters and sculptors, whose sense of humor often keeps them from
taking their own art seriously; and unfortunately of such some recent juries
have been. Thus we have on the one hand, those serious photographic
workers having faith in their medium of art, equipped with artistic percep-
tion and training, and on the other, men who view their art mainly as a
medium of pecuniary profit. Such, alas, has been our experience, for those
artists whose judgment would command the highest respect, have rarely shown
more interest in the subject than to allow their names to be conjured with on
the list of jurors, when in reality they have taken no active part in arriving
at the verdict. Not only do photographers fool themselves and the general
public by invoking the aid of such as these, but they are aiding, perhaps
unintentionally, in making the claims of pictorial photography ridiculous in
the eyes of the very men who lend the prestige of their names to a cause,
in which, as yet, they do not believe.
Editors.
48
