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

PHOTO-SECESSION NOTES.
THE SAN FRANCISCO SALON.
¶ REPORTS FROM every hand indicate that the Salon recently held in
San Francisco was a huge success and that the Photo-Secession Loan Collec-
tion materially aided in this result and met with a hearty reception. We
can not help extending our heartiest congratulations to the authorities for the
punctual and conscientious manner in which they met all their obligations-
so unlike most photographic bodies who take their promises in too light a
spirit—as well as upon the ambitious and tasteful effort displayed in their
catalogue. We have found that it is a safe generalization to infer the char-
acter of an exhibition from the taste or want of taste displayed in its catalogue.
ST. LOUIS.
¶ As far as the Photo-Secession is concerned, there is still " nothing doing”
in St. Louis. We are informed by our friend, Mr. A. Horsley Hinton,
that the British Government has appointed him its envoy to the St. Louis
Exposition, and that he will visit this country early in 1904 for the purpose
of supervising the hanging of the collection of photographs which is to
represent Great Britain. Please note the difference in the ways of govern-
ments. Mr. Hinton comes here in a representative capacity, with full
authority, and at the expense of his Government. The United States some
time since appointed Mr. Alfred Stieglitz Commissioner for the American
Photographic Section in the Exposition at Paris, without delegating any
definite authority to him, and upon the assumption that the honor of the
appointment was so great that he would be only too glad to gather together
the American pictures at his own expense as well as to pay all costs of the
trip. What happened is history.
¶ It seems a pity that all pictorial photographers are not united in the
attitude adopted by the Photo-Secession towards St. Louis. The fight it
is making, we must repeat, is one of principle. Great Britain, the undoubted
birthplace of pictorial photography, may be satisfied to hang its collection
in any part of the building of its Government, but the Photo-Secession
represents no government; being, in fact, synonymous with the fight for
recognition that has been waged here for years past. If such pottery, tapes-
tries, decorative glass, furniture, silverware, etc., as show the evidences of
the artist are to be displayed in the Arts Building — which will include the
paintings and sculpture — is it not manifest that such pictorial photography
as evidences these same qualities is entitled at least to the positive assurance
of having one of these prints hung in this company, regardless of what may
then be done with the other photographs which ought also to be hung
there, but for which there will probably be no room available ? The Photo-
Secession demands but the guarantee of space for a single print in the Arts
Building, it being immaterial whose picture secures the recognition for which
it is fighting. This has been the ultimatum sent to the St. Louis authorities
in reply to their latest request to the Photo-Secession.

50