Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1907 (Heft 18))

but that is pitting it against the supremest art the musical world has known,
and would be as unfair as comparing a Steichen portrait with a Van Dyck
or a Velasquez, a Demachy landscape with a Corot, or a Demachy ballet-girl
with a Degas, all unreasonable, as the elements are too unequal.
MR. F. M. SUTCLIFFE’S VIEWS.
It is impossible to get away from the thought that the danger which
M. Demachy speaks of is a real one. We see evidences of a national failing
in other things besides photography. The silent revolution going on in
these islands can not fail to affect all arts, especially the fine ones. France
got over its revolution a century ago, and the arts have had time to recover.
We are not so fortunate here. Our masses are only beginning to feel the
influence of beauty. Is it surprising, then, that we are not ready for
anything of an advanced kind?
Then there is always something to be said on both sides of every
question. If M. Demachy were the editor of a photographic paper, and
had to look at the thousands of photographs sent to him for criticism, he
would, doubtless, wish that people would learn to walk before they tried to
run. He would soon be sick of the sight of the childish attempts at
picture-making, and the fearful results of using such a proccess as gum, or
even touching up on the back of the negative. He would say, “Give me
pure photography rather than these daubs.” A correctly exposed and
developed photograph of a beautiful subject, printed tastefully, without any
manipulation, may be a mechanical thing to the end of its days, but it does
not offend the critical eye as an attempt at improving the photograph by
one ignorant of drawing and with no regard for truth.
I do not know whether there is another photographer in France who
has such perfect command over the gum process as M. Demachy. Here
in Britain we have no one who seems to be able to work it in a like manner.
If we had, instead of there being a solitary gummist here and there, we should
have thousands, for I am sure that there are a great many photographers at
present who can not express themselves as they would wish to. They get
their impressions right enough, but for want of skill, or for want of a process
with which they are in sympathy, they put up with pure photography, much
to their sorrow. It may be that none have time to give to any work requir-
ing great skill, and have to leave much of their printing to their wives, their
cousins, or their aunts.
Another reason why “Pure photography” may be the cry is because of
the optician. He doubtless asks in an injured tone of voice when he sees a
gum print, “Where do I come in?” After he has been at such pains to
enable us to get such marvelous definition it seems rather too bad to throw
his kindness in his face.
After all, what can M. Demachy expect from photographers in Britain?
Has he seen the new cover of "― ,"a photographic magazine published
in London? This is very much worse than the purest photograph ever
made. If he has not seen it, I hope he will not try to do so.
48