Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1909 (Heft 28))

developed a more realistic technique. The old Masters tried to create an illu-
sion, to reproduce the actual roundness of things and the esthetic possibilities
of the three dimensions, and did not wish to interfere with the produced im-
pression by any violence of texture. The main object of the impressionist,
on the other hand, is to create an impression by suggestion and he asks assist-
ance from the very medium he employs. The plastic aspect of color, no matter
whether executed in the commas of Monet, the dots of Pissaro, the irregular
patches of Sisley, the cross hatching of Degas or the stitches of Segantini, have
to help physically to construct the image in the eye.
The result was a curious one. The canvases began to resemble wool,
pottery, mineral surfaces, and oriental carpets, and through this very peculiarity
of texture combined with color themes they acquired a decorative tendency
that was not anticipated by its originators. And this transformation of a
realistically conceived technique into one of idealizing quality was largely due,
as I hope to prove, to the choice of subjects.
The impressionist painters adhere to a style of composition that is strictly
photographic. It apparently ignores all previous laws. They depict life in
scraps and fragments, as it appears haphazard in the finder or on the ground
glass of the camera (viz Renoir’s “On the Terrace”). The mechanism of
the camera is essentially the one medium which renders every interpretation
impressionistic, and every photographic exposure, whether sharp or blurred,
really represents an impressionist composition. The lens of the camera taught
the painter the importance of a single object in space, to realize that all sub-
jects can not be seen with equal clearness, and that it is necessary to concentrate
the point of interest according to the visual abilities of the eye. It is a curious
fact that all compositions of the Old Masters were out of focus. True enough
they swept minor light and color notations into larger ones, but there seldom
was any definite indication in their work whether an object was in the fore-
ground or middle distance. Their way of seeing things no doubt was a volun-
tary one—they had a different idea of pictorial interpretation. In their pictures
as in nature, we continually allow our attention to flit from one point to the
other in the endeavor to grasp the whole, and the result is a series of minor
impressions, which unconsciously influence the final and total impression we
receive from a picture.
The artist of the new school endeavors to reproduce any impression he
has received, unchanged. He wants the impression to explain itself, and wants
to see it on the canvas as he has seen and felt it, hoping that his interpretation
may call forth similar esthetic pleasures in others as the original impression
made on him. And it was largely the broadcast appearance of photogra-
phic images that taught him to see nature in a new light, as the human eye sees
it in ordinary practice. At the same time the increasing popularity of these
images emphasized in them the smoothness of texture which we were accus-
tomed to for ages, and which is so peculiar to the photographic print that
even artistic hand manipulation can not entirely overcome it. Delacroix was
the first to recognize in photography a serious competitor. And thus the young