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

As a group, the German “professional” work excelled that of any other
country in several notable particulars. To sum them up, the work was the
least hackneyed, and the versatility it displayed was based, not on extraneous
devices, but upon the essential resources of the medium. It is only fair, how-
ever, to add that the impression, thus gained of the whole exhibit, proved upon
further acquaintance to be due to the signal superiority of a few individuals:
conspicuously of Rudolf Diihrkoop of Berlin and Hamburg; Hugo Erfuth of
Dresden, and Franz Grainer of Munich. These men show the influence of
the Secession. But, in saying this, I do not suggest that they have borrowed
of this or of that member of it. On the contrary, they have caught something
of the spirit of the Secession, which in its aggregate is a great deal bigger than
the contribution of any of its separate units. Probably they have missed its
biggest inspiration, even as many of the Secessionists themselves have missed
or lost it. I mean the spirit of unselfishness, mutual helpfulness and imper-
sonal surrender; a habit of thought and conduct that none of us can venture to
say we have attained, though we may still hold to it as the worthiest of ideals.
But something of the spirit of the Secession in its practical application to photog-
raphy they certainly have caught; namely, that principle of striving for the
best artistic results through technical honesty and conscientious craftsmanship.
And in the application of this principle they exhibit the characteristically Ger-
man traits of superior comprehension and thoroughness. They suggest the
possession of a higher order of mind than is usually associated with photog-
raphy; a mind trained to analyze, draw conclusions and patiently pursue
them. It is this sort of cultivated mind, rather rare in other countries but
characteristic of German education, that they have brought to bear upon what
the Secession offers in the way of suggestion; and it has given them a sound
basis of technical familiarity with the resources of the medium, upon which
the versatility of the German temperament may display itself. Thus their
work is distinguished by a variety of treatment and a fertility of resource that
are in refreshing contrast to the more hackneyed methods of the American
group, and freer also from the obvious straining after distinction that is dis-
posed to characterise the group of Austrian professionals. Pichier* s work for
example, among the latter, suggests to me that he sets out to do a big thing,
instead of doing the biggest of which he is capable with the everyday thing, as
it comes along in the ordinary routine.
In this respect, of being a constructor of imposing compositions, one
might describe Pichier as being the Austrian analogue of our own Herzog.
Both have invaded that province of painting which is not concerned with the
facts of sight but with the creations of the imagination. While Herzog, how-
ever, emulates the methods of the great Italians, Pichier vies with the moderns,
particularly Bocklin. Each, in doing so, I venture to believe (and the lesson
of the Dresden Exposition seems to enforce my belief), is going outside the
real metier of the camera; but I hope to return to this subject in a later article.
Meanwhile there is a great difference between the two men; for while Herzog’s
compositions are purely artificial, Pichier* s have a setting of actual out-of-door
38