nificance and importance with the Impressionist movement. This may seem an extravagant
statement on first thought, but I venture to say that twenty years hence it will appear to be nothing
worse than a trite truism. Nevertheless I stick to it at the risk of being regarded as trite by my
grandchildren, or rather by the grandchildren of my astonished contemporaries. But as a little
clue I would simply throw out the observation that the highest expression of the imaginative and
inventive genius of our time, especially of the best creative minds of America, is the machine in
all its beautiful simplicity and co-ordinate complexity—in it we find our sonnets, our epics, and
therein lies expressed eloquently the true greatness of our age.
Why, then, shouldn’t some of our most sensitive, progressive and, in the best sense, truly
modern minds find in this exquisitely sensitive machine, the camera, an instrument responsive
as none other to express what they feel and see of the beauty and glory of life ? Yours, gentle but
stubborn reader, is the onus, not mine, and I leave you to answer it as best you may. As for me,
the exhibition under consideration confirmed in the most positive fashion that photography is
such a medium of expression. So much for the deeper significance of the show and the impression
it made upon me and others.
As for what the exhibition comprised, it is only necessary to state that, beginning with the
seven prints printed by Coburn from negatives made by D. O. Hill in 1843, the evolution of pictorial
photography was shown up to the present time, including representative groups of prints by such
comparative newcomers in the field as Mrs. Annie W. Brigman and George H. Seeley. The
group of Hill’s was a revelation to every one. They suffered not at all by comparison with
the best work done to-day by our ablest men, many of whom might be proud of such achieve-
ments. They showed photography at its best—full of light and distinguished by a charming
simplicity of arrangement in the posing of the figures. Of historic importance, though some-
what less beautiful artistically than the Hill’s, were the four prints by Mrs. Julia Cameron,
done back in the early seventies, whose portrait of Herschell was one of the most impressive
prints in the exhibition, and this despite the fact that it was poorly printed. One wonders
what the modern art of printing would bring out of these negatives in the hands of a man like
Steichen, for example. In passing it is of interest to mention that these 11x14 portraits by Mrs.
Cameron were done on wet plates, which in itself was a feat of no inconsiderable importance
in her day.
Chronologically next in order, but in many respects of prime importance because of the wide
and progressive influence exerted by them on the whole movement of present day pictorial pho-
tography, is the group of seven prints contributed by Alfred Stieglitz. Here one found the incentive
for many a print by newcomers and not a few paintings, as for example, the “Winter on Fifth
Avenue,” done in 1893, which has furnished many of our younger photographers the inspiration
for a whole series of New York street scenes, besides being responsible for opening the eyes of the
painters to the pictorial possibilities of so-called ugly New York. Pictorially and photographically
these prints were among the most interesting and important in this exhibition of big men. Abso-
lutely straightforward, they more than held their own with much of the more pretentious, eye-
compelling work that at first sight took your breath away. And here let me state that this is
said against the protest of the editor, Mr. Stieglitz, as I insist upon so doing, because a survey of
this kind would be incomplete without a mention of the part he has played in the development
of pictorial photography.
Contemporaneous with him in this pioneer work the names of Mrs. Gertrude Kaesebier and
Clarence H. White stand out conspicuously. In them the movement found two of its most active
and ardent supporters, whose productiveness and high artistry have done much to win for photog-
raphy its present recognition, and it is safe to say that their work will be esteemed at its true value
more and more as time goes on. The group of seven prints, contributed by Mrs. Kaesebier,
including her portrait of Rodin, her well-known print called “The Heritage of Motherhood” and
the “Sorbonne” was highly indicative of her powers. As in the case of one or two others one felt
that a better and perhaps a more representative selection might have been made, yet on the whole
these seven prints showed the qualities as well as the shortcomings of her work without calling
especial attention to either. Five out of the seven were gum prints, if I mistake not, and none of
these compared with her fine portrait of Alfred Stieglitz in the same medium, which was not
shown. They were all rather tentative in treatment, and, with the exception of the portrait of

39