DOI article:
Sadakichi Hartmann, The Photo-Secession Exhibition at the Carnegie Art Galleries, Pittsburg, Pa.
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.30316#0056
A manually made transcription or edition is also available for this page. Please change to the tab "transrciption" or "edition."
fine conception of atmosphere and of moving crowds, and his “ Christmas
Shopping" appeals to me even more than Stieglitz's well-known “Wet Day
on the Boulevard."
A very satisfactory group of pictures is furnished by J. G. Bullock,
W. B. Post, whose winter landscapes are perhaps a little too white and
barren, and Rose Clark, whose portraits, though not great, possess a
refinement and vague pictorial old-masterlike charm that is exquisite.
Eugene has nothing new to show. Strange that a man with so much
talent, with such an overabundance of talent — in his application of painter-
like qualities he is second only to Steichen — should at times do such
slovenly work. And yet one is forced to admire him, and his “ Adam and
Eve,” in spite of its shortcomings, is one of the few great pictures artistic
photography has produced. His art is like a flower which, though its
leaves are withered and crumpled, still retains its perfume.
Mary Devens, judged by her pictures in this exhibition, impresses me
as being the strongest woman photographer we have just at present.
Gertrude Käsebier's newer work does not appeal to me in the same way as
her older, lacking in spontaneity and virility. Pictures like “The Manger”
and “ Blessed Art Thou Among Women” hold their own as of old in the
best of company. Yarnall Abbott and Rudolf Eickemeyer are rather inade-
quately represented. By having failed to show their most representative
work they have missed a rare opportunity—or is it possible that the very
high standard of this exhibition has made their work look less important ?
But it is not my intention to criticize all the exhibits in detail—though
I should still like to mention Dyer's “Nude” and “Dinah Morris,” Willard's
“Oenone” and “The Veil,” and Herbert G. French who, all by himself,
holds up the banner of artistic photography in the large city of Cincinnati
— I merely wish to prove that there are quite a number of photographic
workers who have succeeded in making camera-work “ a distinctive medium
of individual expression.” The best proof of this assertion is in that
nearly all the prominent Secessionists have imitators galore. There were
decided indications of this in the exhibition. There are two ways of
looking at it. One might say, here we have the proof that true reformatory
work is never in vain, that genuine invention always produces an effect.
But do these imitators really follow in the footsteps of their masters ? Do
they not merely strive for the form and not for the idea as revealed in
Secessionist work? Do they not merely imitate certain lines and certain
peculiar effects because others have applied and successfully applied them ?
And therein lies, to my way of thinking, the great danger of the Photo-
Secession movement. Mannerism means the decline of all art. To
substitute one mannerism for another surely is not their aim. As soon as
beauty is imitated or produced at second hand it ceases to be beautiful, and
is at best but pretty, clever, or effective. There is no sincerity in it. It
has deteriorated into mere play. It produces its effect not by its own merit
but by reminiscences. To copy Hollinger or Histed can surely not lead to
the beautiful, no more than you can achieve beauty though you imitate
50
Shopping" appeals to me even more than Stieglitz's well-known “Wet Day
on the Boulevard."
A very satisfactory group of pictures is furnished by J. G. Bullock,
W. B. Post, whose winter landscapes are perhaps a little too white and
barren, and Rose Clark, whose portraits, though not great, possess a
refinement and vague pictorial old-masterlike charm that is exquisite.
Eugene has nothing new to show. Strange that a man with so much
talent, with such an overabundance of talent — in his application of painter-
like qualities he is second only to Steichen — should at times do such
slovenly work. And yet one is forced to admire him, and his “ Adam and
Eve,” in spite of its shortcomings, is one of the few great pictures artistic
photography has produced. His art is like a flower which, though its
leaves are withered and crumpled, still retains its perfume.
Mary Devens, judged by her pictures in this exhibition, impresses me
as being the strongest woman photographer we have just at present.
Gertrude Käsebier's newer work does not appeal to me in the same way as
her older, lacking in spontaneity and virility. Pictures like “The Manger”
and “ Blessed Art Thou Among Women” hold their own as of old in the
best of company. Yarnall Abbott and Rudolf Eickemeyer are rather inade-
quately represented. By having failed to show their most representative
work they have missed a rare opportunity—or is it possible that the very
high standard of this exhibition has made their work look less important ?
But it is not my intention to criticize all the exhibits in detail—though
I should still like to mention Dyer's “Nude” and “Dinah Morris,” Willard's
“Oenone” and “The Veil,” and Herbert G. French who, all by himself,
holds up the banner of artistic photography in the large city of Cincinnati
— I merely wish to prove that there are quite a number of photographic
workers who have succeeded in making camera-work “ a distinctive medium
of individual expression.” The best proof of this assertion is in that
nearly all the prominent Secessionists have imitators galore. There were
decided indications of this in the exhibition. There are two ways of
looking at it. One might say, here we have the proof that true reformatory
work is never in vain, that genuine invention always produces an effect.
But do these imitators really follow in the footsteps of their masters ? Do
they not merely strive for the form and not for the idea as revealed in
Secessionist work? Do they not merely imitate certain lines and certain
peculiar effects because others have applied and successfully applied them ?
And therein lies, to my way of thinking, the great danger of the Photo-
Secession movement. Mannerism means the decline of all art. To
substitute one mannerism for another surely is not their aim. As soon as
beauty is imitated or produced at second hand it ceases to be beautiful, and
is at best but pretty, clever, or effective. There is no sincerity in it. It
has deteriorated into mere play. It produces its effect not by its own merit
but by reminiscences. To copy Hollinger or Histed can surely not lead to
the beautiful, no more than you can achieve beauty though you imitate
50
