Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1908 (Heft 21))

proposition, but as almost the whole controversy as to whether photography
is or is not a fine art, has turned on this single point, let us make an inquiry
as to what the nature of this “ personal touch” is, and see if all the arts
must really possess it, and, if so, whether it can be found in photography.
In painting, what is usually called the personal touch evinces itself in locai
touches and exaggerations, unmistakably bearing the stamp of the work of a
human being. However, different paintings vary as to the quantity of the
touch they possess, archaic work being more strongly flavored with it than
some more recent productions. In music, the personal touch is the finger-
touch of the player. That this touch is necessary for the production of true
music is proven by the fact that such machines as musical piano-players, and
pianolas, even when exactly rendering the score, can not make music, and
the more perfectly they are constructed, the more diabolical they are. In
dancing, the personal touch mutates into actual existence — it is the person,
as well as the personality of the dancer. In oratory, the personality of the
person becomes so important that it receives a special name, magnetism, and
without it, a man may utter Aristotelian wisdom unheeded, while another,
possessed of it, will talk semi- or fully-idiotic propositions to a crowd beside
itself with enthusiasm. In sculpture, the personal touch is very small in
quantity; it can produce its effect by running extremely close to nature.
Plaster casts of parts of the living body, when that body is beautiful, pro-
duce the same esthetic sensations, although in a smaller quantity, that actual,
hand-made sculpture does. Not merely is this true, but when the rough-
nesses which imitate the coarseness of the human flesh have been smoothed
down, the result is still more artistic. But, strangely, this operation of
smoothing is mechanical, and rather takes from, than adds to, the personal
touch. In architecture—except in primitive forms — the <cpersonal touch ”
does not exist> and it appeals to the emotions solely through its proportions.
Now, from the above, it would appear that either architecture is not a
fine art, or the personal touch is not needed in art, or there has been some-
thing wrong in my reasoning. My reasoning, however, has not been wrong,
and the personal touch is necessary in the fine arts, and, also, architecture is
one of these fine arts. What is, and has always been, wrong, is the con-
ception photographers attach to the term, personal touch. There are two
meanings of the word: the first is the kind we have been speaking of, of
which the orator has the most; the sculptor, very little, and the architect,
none — the corporeal touch. The second is the true and philosophic mean-
ing, namely, to create with the brain, and bring into concrete existence,
through one or other of the physical organs, as by the hand. But to give
life by the touch of the hand does not at all imply that, after life has been
given, any evidence of how it was produced shall remain — in architecture,
as we have seen, it is eliminated, and whole schools of even the graphic arts,
as the Asiatic, demand that the personality of the creator shall be suppressed
as much as possible.
And what does creation by the brain, and bringing into existence by the
hands, mean? It means only one thing — composing. Man can not truly

*9