DOI Heft:
Exhibition Notes
DOI Artikel:S. L. Willard, The Third Salon in Chicago
DOI Artikel:Editors, Photo-Secession Notes
DOI Artikel:Editors, Re St. Louis
DOI Heft:[That which separates a great artist, unsigned and untitled text]
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29979#0067
- 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".
MR.Alvin Langdon Coburn, Fellow of the Photo-Secession, exhibited a
collection of some sixty prints in New York during the month of January.
The collection was of special interest to the student of pictorial photography,
comprising as it did much that was original and unconventional.
RE ST. LOUIS
OUR editorial in the preceding number introducing Mr. Caffin’s Inter-
national Studio articles upon Pictorial Photography at the St. Louis
Exposition, seems seriously to have hurt the feelings of Mr. J. C. Strauss
of St. Louis in that we questioned the right of this gentleman “ to act as
spokesman for the photographic pictorialists.” This much is evident from
the tenor of an eight-page typewritten letter addressed to the editor by
Mr. Strauss, in which he marshals extracts from communications from
various photographic organizations, domestic and foreign, addressed to
himself endorsing his attitude in re St. Louis, and offering their coöperation
in the steps already taken by him. He further calls attention to the fact
that all action taken by him was in the capacity of chairman of the committee
appointed by the National Convention of the P. A. of A. in 1901.
IN so far as our editorial has given the impression that the gentleman has
acted upon his own initiative, we desire to make clear that such was not our
thought, as we were at all times in possession of all the particulars; but we
wish again to reiterate that Mr. Strauss did not represent the spirit or ideas
of those “photographic pictorialists” who have gained the recognition of
modern photography in the field of art. The distinction between such and
photographers generally was clearly in our minds, as an intelligent reading
of the original editorial will show, care having been taken to speak only
in behalf of the “photographic pictorialists”
WE do not feel that we have done Mr. Strauss any injustice, and therefore
do not see any necessity to print in full his lengthy communication, which,
however, we shall be glad to show to any one desiring to see it.
Editors.
AN artist is always convinced of the ignorance of his critic — unless he is
praised.
IN art there can be but progress and retrogression, as to stand-still is but
a form of the latter.
51
a form of the latter.
51
collection of some sixty prints in New York during the month of January.
The collection was of special interest to the student of pictorial photography,
comprising as it did much that was original and unconventional.
RE ST. LOUIS
OUR editorial in the preceding number introducing Mr. Caffin’s Inter-
national Studio articles upon Pictorial Photography at the St. Louis
Exposition, seems seriously to have hurt the feelings of Mr. J. C. Strauss
of St. Louis in that we questioned the right of this gentleman “ to act as
spokesman for the photographic pictorialists.” This much is evident from
the tenor of an eight-page typewritten letter addressed to the editor by
Mr. Strauss, in which he marshals extracts from communications from
various photographic organizations, domestic and foreign, addressed to
himself endorsing his attitude in re St. Louis, and offering their coöperation
in the steps already taken by him. He further calls attention to the fact
that all action taken by him was in the capacity of chairman of the committee
appointed by the National Convention of the P. A. of A. in 1901.
IN so far as our editorial has given the impression that the gentleman has
acted upon his own initiative, we desire to make clear that such was not our
thought, as we were at all times in possession of all the particulars; but we
wish again to reiterate that Mr. Strauss did not represent the spirit or ideas
of those “photographic pictorialists” who have gained the recognition of
modern photography in the field of art. The distinction between such and
photographers generally was clearly in our minds, as an intelligent reading
of the original editorial will show, care having been taken to speak only
in behalf of the “photographic pictorialists”
WE do not feel that we have done Mr. Strauss any injustice, and therefore
do not see any necessity to print in full his lengthy communication, which,
however, we shall be glad to show to any one desiring to see it.
Editors.
AN artist is always convinced of the ignorance of his critic — unless he is
praised.
IN art there can be but progress and retrogression, as to stand-still is but
a form of the latter.
51
a form of the latter.
51
