Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1913 (Special number))

for the correspondence of the artist’s means to his idea, as in Lehmbruck’s
statue. Always concerned only with the superficial imitation of nature, he
testifies to the mistaken attitude of the general public before art. Judging
an artist to be mainly an imitator of reality, he calls all those who appear to
him to fall short of perfect imitation “fakers.” Or rather “likely” fakers.
For Mr. Roosevelt is not quite sure; his mind, like the public mind in general,
is not so fully biased as that of the critic “authorities”; he acknowledges the
pleasing absence, all over the exhibition, of “self-satisfied conventionality.”
Because he amuses himself with the task of inventing other names for “Cub-
ists,” vacillates in his judgment and condemns most of the new as it comes
from Europe, nobody need seek a quarrel with our former president. He
did not like his task evidently; for he constantly veils his statements in terms
of uncertainty; “likely,” “probably,” “seems”; while we all know, that
where Mr. Roosevelt believes he knows his subject, be it man or beast, his
language is drastic and certain. After all, however, the “layman’s view”
takes us to the art works—and to the new in them,—while the orthodox
would have the people flee it as the devil.
*****
In order to understand the new trend of art it is well first to size up this
Exhibition in proportion to the whole state of the new art in Europe, of which
it is only an example, and in so doing to leave aside all set prejudices, arising
out of one-sided education, personal sentiments and preferences, the illusions
of tradition as to what is beautiful, misconception of the purpose of art, con-
ceit of personal success, money-interests, and the like. For to all of these
reasons the opposition may be easily traced. We must allow for the imper-
fection of the Exhibition as such, as well as for deficiencies in the works of
the artists, that naturally stand in the way of a ready understanding and
appreciation, although such matters have little or nothing to do with the
real issue.
To begin with, the display was not a clear-cut selection from the new
movements. In a historical sense, it stretched over so long a period, that
much which was new at one time is considered old today and appears not
at all as a part of what the new, today, stands for. Similarly, a great deal
of the contemporaneous art shown, especially from America, is virtually
foreign to the new intents and modes. Furthermore, the melee of antagonistic
examples was mostly arranged in a manner that could only add to the con-
fusion of the public, making it physically difficult to separate and to coor-
dinate, and thus to concentrate the attention on one aspect of the new at a
time.
In these matters the work undertaken by the originators of the show
failed through their ambition. Moreover, the two important masters and
fathers of the art-revolution, Cezanne and Van Gogh, were quite inade-
quately represented by the number as well as by the quality of their pictures.
Neither was the European section, generally, a complete survey of the variety

3i