Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1908 (Heft 24))

sionals—you know, the usual kind!—all the actresses retouched, and the
“ soups” of all kinds. I regret that they would not follow up the experi-
ment. I remember the interesting works of M. Demachy, and those of
M. Harveis, since a painter. Today I know the portraits of Mr. Steichen.
Would they not be in their place at the Salon d’Automne ?
I am happy to have been given the opportunity to examine these
pictures. It seems to me that the reproductions of these portraits, of these
beautiful landscapes would have their place in the solution of that question
of “ L’Art & T Ecole” (“Art at the School ”) that I am so passionately eager
for. They could replace the too costly gravures and especially the usual
trash that official and commercial art spreads everywhere.”

STEINLEN
By means of painting, engraving, lithography, crayon, Steinlen has ren-
dered with truthfulness, with a depth before unknown, the scenes of the
street and of the workman’s life. Immense decorations, easel-paintings,
sketches, illustrations for newspapers, reviews, books, posters, tell of the
abundant labor of this great social depictor, sensible to the miseries of the
crowds, as well as to the more delicate sentimentalities of the feminine soul.
“ Why should not photography in the hands of intelligent and ar-
tistic men produce works which have an art value ? One has long forgotten
what photography might give us, so much have its practitioners claimed
to possess an art of their own, as well as an education of their own.
They are persons of special mentality, that think only of the horrid
perfection of their retouching. But the works that you show me are
admirable. I haven’t seen any portrait that may be compared to those
of Lenbach, of Mucha, and others. They are living, and have the sculptural
beauty, the envelope of works of masters. They are beautiful documents of
life. The landscapes in fat inks, they too are beautiful. Were your pro-
cesses only to allow putting planes into their proper places, that itself would
be a beautiful conquest; but they allow the interpretation of the negative,
and I am no foe of it. Indeed you show me pure photographs having an
indisputable charm, but it seems to me that one must reserve to one’s self the
right to be able to simplify annoying parts, to drown others in shadow, and
to make obligatory sacrifices. I am afraid that the examples of pure pho-
tography which you show me do not give a sufficient proof of art, notwith-
standing the aesthetic sense of the photographers and their care of compo-
sition. I am happy to see a proof saved from the commonplace by a well-
placed high-light, by some values transformed. In spite of that, I am not
in favor of exaggerated interpretation, and that is what happens sometimes.
For instance, why make a moonlight of a morning effect? This is only
trickery, virtuosity, and virtuosity is detestable in anything. Also skies made
from many pieces shock me; I see first the clever trickery of the photog-
rapher and then I see the perfectly harmonious texture produced by the

16