Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1906 (Heft 14))

EDITORIAL.
ON November 25, 1905, was taken the most important step
in the history of the Photo-Secession. In the evening of
that day, without flourish of trumpets, without the stereotyped
press-view or similar antiquated functions, the Secessionists and
a few friends informally opened the Little Galleries of the
Photo-Secession at 291 Fifth Avenue, New York. The inaugural exhibi-
tion of one hundred prints consisted of work of the members, each member
having been privileged to show one print, and of the eighty odd members,
of whom about sixty are photographers, forty were represented. Statistics
of this and the following exhibitions will be found elsewhere in our pages.
It is but natural that varying impressions should have been made upon the
visitors to the Little Galleries, and as it is not our intention ourselves to
describe or review the Secession efforts, we can perhaps best aid such of our
readers who have not been able to judge visually in forming some impression
by reprinting three or four articles typifying the diverse points of view. The
reprinted articles are chosen because they were written by men representing
different beliefs as to the possibilities of photography and its proper place in
the scheme of things.
That ancient conundrum, whether the medium of photography can serve
to give expression to a temperament, has again naturally been propounded
and the answers are as numerous as the photographers, whose name is legion,
and as art-critics whose numbers are even greater. This makes opportune
the reprinting, with consent of the author, of two articles by Bernard Shaw,
himself the greatest of critics in that he has been known to criticise himself
and that he still retains his sense of humor. Mr. Shaw, himself an enthusiastic
photographer, has been a " Constant Reader” of Camera Work, and yet
despite the quarterly sermons and constant examples set before him he
looked through the proof sent him, corrected the errors of the press, but
found nothing to modify or withdraw. One of the articles, he thinks, was
addressed to a particular evil that was prevalent when it was first written and
that it would be irrelevant (that is bad journalism) if it appeared in the absence
of that evil, but finds himself forced to admit that there is not much danger
of that. But what may one hope from a photographer who dares note upon
a portrait of himself (taken by a prominent Secessionist): " This is my
authentic portrait, G. Bernard Shaw”? Perhaps our reader finds himself in
the same quandary as the maker of this portrait and vainly asks : What could
G. B. S. have meant?
The articles reprinted in this number express views often so divergent
that it seems a fitting opportunity for us once more to emphasize our policy,
which consists in printing any point of view or any idea, whether we approve
of it or not, provided such point of view or such idea appears to have behind
it some solid gray matter of brain. It seems that some persons believed
that the fact of our printing implied our tacit approval. Nothing is further
from the truth. This should have been self-evident to any careful reader, but as
some seem to have misunderstood we take this occasion to repeat our position.
17

t