Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1905 (Heft 10))

EDUARD STEICHEN: PAINTER AND PHOTOGRAPHER.
Mr. Charles FitzGerald, the art-critic of the Evening Sun, New York, has in the past strenuously
denied the claims of photography as a possible medium of art-expression in the same spirit as
has moved him to deny the existence of art in the productions of many modern painting ex-
hibitions in New York. A recent one-man show of Mr. Steichen’s paintings at Glaenzer’s
seemed to us a fitting opportunity to request Mr. FitzGerald to write for Camera Work, and
thus to present to our readers the estimate of one not previously connected with photography.
In view of Mr. Steichen’s position in photography, it seemed proper to us that this exhibition
of paintings should be noticed in these pages, and it is interesting to read Mr. FitzGerald’s
estimate of this young painter-photographer’s artistic perceptions. That Mr. FitzGerald’s
point of view was uninfluenced by any considerations other than his honest judgment is
evident from the text. The future alone can determine the validity of the judgment thus
rendered.— Editors.
Finding myself at times on the brink of argument with some earnest
votary of the photographic art, I have hitherto invariably been saved at the
critical moment by a friendly warning, a polite reminder of the perils incident
to a plunge into depths as yet unsounded by explorers whose lives have been
given to their task with a singleness of purpose to which I would by no means
pretend. And, although at such moments I have secretly resented this treat-
ment, thinking the photographers too fastidious in their bearing towards the
rest of the world (as if the mysteries of their calling were far above the
understanding of the vulgar); yet, upon mature consideration it seemed not
incredible to me that perfect comprehension of the art they profess might
involve the acceptance of a new and strange set of symbols distinct from the
common heritage of the black-and-white tradition, and not instantly apparent
to the uninitiated. For the rest I must in candor add that this concession
was speculative rather than actual, seeing the photographers themselves had
given me no reason to suppose that the postulates of their convention
differed in essence from those generally accepted in drawing and painting;
but, on the contrary, had insisted at all times that in practice they stood upon
the same foot with other designers, the only distinction lying in the variety
of media employed. Quite recently a singular opportunity has arisen to
test the matter in doubt, and to take the measure of photographic mastery
without encroachment in the occult domain so jealously guarded by the
profession.
I am ignorant whether Mr. Eduard Steichen is more painter or
photographer; but, on the evidence of his peers, I judge that his standing
among the masters of the camera is undisputed. In the criticism of paint-
ing, the term “master” is employed more sparingly, and comments on his
recent exhibition at Mr. Glaenzer’s showed a general disposition to treat him
rather as a newcomer, as a young man " feeling his way.” I know that in
the critics' cant every painter is young till he has won a prize at the Academy
or Society, and I am the more perplexed to decide what allowances are
required on the score of youth in this instance by finding Mr. Steichen
spoken of in Camera Work as an " old leader” in photography. If, however,
we are to concede any, it can not surely be in consideration of technical
deficiency. I suspect that the critics have been deceived, imagining that he

42