Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1913 (Heft 41))

I have since come in contact with many visitors to this exhibition but have failed to detect
any signs that the public was aware that it had been introduced to “modern art as a movement”
or that the popular mind had been in the least degree clarified.
Everywhere, on the contrary, I heard live and stimulating discussions of our exhibitions
at “291” and I noticed that when the coming exhibition of International Art was announced
and the art critics became anxious to become posted on the modern movement, “291 ” seemed to
be the only source of information available.
I realized, then, that the seed we had sown was bearing its fruits,—that our tabloid
exhibitions had left their lasting mark because, few as the examples may have been, which
could be hung on our sixty feet of wall space, these examples were typical of the best work
of the artist or the group of artists and that the samples instead of being unrelated showed the
perfect sequence and logical development of the work, and each exhibition was so timely that
it acquired an additional value and a raison d’etre from the circumstances existing at the time.
In this respect I cannot but insist on the care with which the work shown at any and
all exhibitions has been selected both by the artist himself when possible, and in all occasions
by yourself or your lieutenants, men who through their intimate association with you under-
stood perfectly your aims and the necessity of selecting work not for its advertising value, but
for its educational and enlightening merits. In the first rank I think it proper to name Eduard
J. Steichen, your principal associate in selecting foreign work, the man primarily responsible for
the introduction of the work of Rodin, Matisse, and Cezanne in the United States, who has
shown such disinterested devotion to the purpose of the Photo-Secession. To Marius de Zayas
is also due much credit for his share in selecting the most representative work of Picasso, with
the help of the artist himself, of Eduard J. Steichen and Frank Haviland.
I feared, when I first read Mr. Brinton’s remarks quoted at the beginning of my letter
that long explanations might be necessary to straighten out the misunderstanding which it
might have caused. But I realize now that the monument built up stone by stone by the
Photo-Secession owes its element of unassailable strength to the fact that none of its exhibitions
were given with the desire to satisfy a momentary fad, but were all given in such a way as
to present only one point at a time, driving it home by timely recurrent exhibitions of the work
of an artist when it had so progressed as to justify a presentation of a developed point of view,
and in such logical sequence as to show the relation of one exhibition to another to any one who
took the pains to study them as they appeared. I may say that in my own experience, after
giving constant study and attention to the new art movement during five years I am only
beginning to understand its purport and some of the causes that have brought it forth. I
cannot conceive of any one exhibition which could enlighten the public mind or even a prepared
mind in a period of a few weeks.
It is only when some museum will deem it its purport to be an educational institution
instead of a hall of records that we can hope to have a large and permanent exhibition of modern
work, which can possess an enlightening value. Otherwise, the larger the exhibition, the more
confusing it will be. The change from the old point of view is too considerable for any one to
adjust himself to the new conception without deep study and a thorough knowledge of many
subjects apparently unrelated but in fact closely related to art. The spirit of the new move-
ment can not be taught in one or even in ten lessons. It can only be gradually absorbed. It
is by giving the public and the students constant and stimulating doses of the new spirit in
art that the Photo-Secession has rendered the community a great service.
I am sending Christian Brinton a copy of this letter that he may have an opportunity to
clear up any misunderstanding that may exist. You are at liberty to make any use of this
letter that you see fit.
Very cordially yours,
Paul B. Haviland.
New York, January 25th, 1913.

43