Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1912 (Heft 38))

walking about. One is forced to make one’s own selections. Rather a
laborious task, even for connoisseurs and critics.
No, there is something wrong in the present distribution of art products.
Exhibitions are naught but battlefields for the survival of the fittest, and
museums the morgues for pictures that are unsuitable or too unwieldy for
private possession. Pictures and books should be owned by the people.
Museums and circulating libraries are the products of a trust civilization.
They are abnormal. Historical collections and reference libraries, like
those of the Louvre and the Vatican, are not included in this statement.
Of course, there are many solitary works of art that can claim a certain
popularity. Botticelli’s “Spring” shares this distinction with “The Doctor’s
Visit” by Lucas Fildes. Madame Le Rrun’s portrait of herself and daughter
is popular and so is Gibson’s latest drawing. It is largely the problem of
quality—of the work, versus quantity—of the appreciation. An explanation
is difficult. My contention is that every masterpiece must possess some of
the “buckeye” element, or in other words, no matter how elaborate, fascinat-
ing and exquisite in finish a painting may be, it must offer some tangible,
ordinary interest that the average mind can seize in order to be truly popular.
And it is this element which modern painting lacks, and which the motion
picture possesses to an almost alarming degree, for it contains all the pictorial-
ism the average person wants, plus motion.
Readers may ask whether I take these pictures seriously and whether I
see any trace of art in them. Yes, honestly, I do. I know that most culti-
vated people feel a trifle ashamed of acknowledging that they occasionally
attend moving picture shows. This is due to caste prejudice, as the largest
percentage of the attendance belongs to the illiterate class (at least as far
as art esthetics are concerned). To my mind there is not the slightest doubt
that these performances show much that is vivid, instructive, and picturesque,
and also occasionally a fleeting vision of something that is truly artistic.
Judging from the ideal standpoint that a moving picture reel should
reveal action in a series of perfect pictures, of course the majority are still
very imperfect and unsatisfactory. There is too much bad acting and stage
scenery in most of them. And many are absolutely tawdry and foolish, in
execution and sentiment. My arguments in favor refer necessarily to the
more practical ones.
The French film makers are in every way our superiors. They succeed
in making excursions even into purely imaginary realms. I saw a Pathe
reel in color representing Poe’s “The Masque of the Red Death” which was
done in a masterly way. There was more real art in the composition and
arrangements of these groups and natural backgrounds than can be found
in the majority of paintings of our annual exhibitions. The French command
better talent and more picturesque scenery. They know how to handle
costume and scenes of dramatic interest. The Americans excel only when
they put aside cheap studio interiors, go into the open and handle realistic
episodes of modern life.
Of course, it is generally not the story which interests me but the repre-