Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1904 (Heft 5))

year, as heretofore, the most versatile of all. The Viennese group, including
Dr. Henneberg, Kuehn, and Watzek †, exhibited in conjunction with Dr.
Spitzer, a pupil of Henneberg. The effects attained by these Viennese with
gum are well known, having revolutionized artistic photography dating from
1896. Their pictures hung this year are as fine as ever. In technique the
Hamburg group owes Vienna everything, and artistically this Austrian work
has been a continuous source of inspiration. In spite of this influence, the
Hamburg group has remained entirely original, and it is not my intention
to subordinate the work of its members to the others. Both are equally
efficient. German professional photography was represented by Perscheid,
Leipzig; Dührkoop, Hamburg; Raupp, Dresden; and Hilsdorf, Bingen.
Prior to our first exhibition in 1893, and for several years thereafter, there
existed no German professional photographer whose work was on a plane
with the requirements laid down in our invitation of 1893.
¶ The public at large has not as yet an appreciation for a simple, honest
reproduction of the individual ego, but that that appreciation is growing is
proven by the rapid increase in the number of such professional photographers
as now share our views. So long as the public is pleased with sentimental con-
ventionalities and the unnatural process of retouching, artistic photography can
not entirely come into its own. Therefore it should be the first aim of every
German society to further reform in this particular direction. We see in the
case of Hilsdorf that even in so small a town as Bingen, with a population of
10,000, there is a field for a modern photographer. But the German societies,
with few exceptions, are so occupied with technical matters, which naturally
are everywhere the same, that there is little opportunity for artistic develop-
ment. Then, too, German societies are so busy making sarcastic criticisms
of pictures they do not understand. They criticize without studying the
subject; they do not visit our exhibitions; they won't buy or look at our
publications; but they fall upon us and all our endeavors with jeers and in-
vectives. No wonder, then, that the rest of Germany has only produced but
few artistic photographers, and these as a rule are affiliated with no society.
Such are Hauptmann Böhmer, Otto Scharf, and Rector Bandelow, all of
whom were represented at the Hamburg exhibition.
The well-known Frenchmen,Demachy,Dubreuil,Puyo, Le Bègue,and Buc-
quet were represented by a large collection. The most important contributors
from England were Craig Annan, Mrs. Barton, Cochrane, Craigie, Page Croft,
Crooke, Evans, Horsley Hinton, Mrs. Jennings, Keighley, and Warburg, of
whom Keighley and Cochrane were the most original. The Cercle d'Art
Photographique l’Effort, of Brussels, founded a few years ago, contributed
prints by Adelot, Dewit, Gaspar, Leys, Mathy, Stouffs, Sneyers, and Willems.
¶ The collection of the Photo-Secession (U. S. A.), arranged by Alfred Stieg-
litz, included the work of twenty-six exhibitors, and was not only the largest
of all the collective exhibits, but was also artistically preëminent. Young
America can indeed boast of artists of individuality in Steichen, Stieglitz,
Käsebier, White, Mathilde Weil, Alvin Langdon Coburn, Rud. Eickemeyer,
Eva Watson-Schütze, Stirling, and Mary Stanbery. Steichen, whose work

47