DOI Heft:
No. 3 (June, 1893)
DOI Artikel:Is the camera the friend or foe of art?
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17188#0117
Is the Camera the Friend or Foe of Art f
a factor in the result, it deserves to come within
the sacred pale of art, but in the outer courts
alone. That the camera at its best can select all
through the field of vision the essential and leave
the non-essential, can infuse the human interest
which such selection implies, and can replace the
indefinable personality of the real artist, is to ask
that a machine shall be not only directed by, but
possessed of, genius, and this, so far as knowledge
dares to forecast, is at present, and apparently must
always remain, impossible. It might be well to
add that this brief summary of a few aspects of the
question is offered merely as a tentative solution of
the problem, and was prepared before the opinion
of the various artists who have so kindly responded
to the appeal worded as the first sentence of this
introduction had been received. This much must
be said to avoid an appearance of a desire to
anticipate the view ot those far more competent
to judge, and to disdain any intention of arrogating
the position of a judicial summing up in a paper
that is intended to open—not to close—a discus-
sion on the camera in art.
II. By Various Eminent Authorities.
The question to which the following are replies
was intended to discover :—
" Whether the camera has, on the whole, been
beneficial or detrimental to art ? This query was
not intended to be taken in a commercial sense, but
to ascertain if the conventions hitherto accepted
by the painter have been modified since its intro-
duction ? "
From Sir Frederic Leighton, Bart., P.R.A.
Dear Sir,—I will confine myself on this occa-
sion to saying that photography may be of great use
or the reverse to an artist, according as it is used
with or without judgment and intelligence. I am
afraid you will consider this very vague, but in
reality it sums up the whole question. — Yours
faithfully, Fred. Leighton.
7 Holland Park Road, W.
From Mr. Laurence Alma Tadema, R.A.
Sir,—I am convinced that the camera has had
a most healthy and useful influence upon art. It
is of the greatest "use to painters.—Yours faithfully,
L. Alma Tadema.
17 Grove End Road, N.W.
From Sir John Everett Millais, Bart., R.A.
Sir,—No doubt photography has been beneficial,
and is often of value to the artist.—Faithfully yours,
J. E. Millais.
2 Palace Gate, W.
From Mr. W. P. Frith, R.A.
Dear Sir,—In my opinion photography has not
benefited art, and to the professors of certain
branches—to wit, miniature painting and engraving
—it has been so injurious as, in the form of photo-
gravure, to have nearly destroyed the latter; and by
means of coloured prints made to resemble minia-
tures a fatal blow has been struck at that beautiful
art.—Sincerely yours, .
W. P. Frith.
Ashen hurst, Forest Hill, S.
From Sir John Gilbert, R.A., P.R.W.S.
Sir,—I have not formed any opinion in my own
mind on the subject on which you desire to know
my views—viz., "The Influence of Photography on
Modern Art." It is an important matter, but one
which I am too feeble to fully consider. Therefore
I hope you will excuse me,— I am, yours faithfullv,
John Gilbert.
Blackheath.
From Sir George Reid, P.R.S.A.
Dear Sir,—The question whether the influence
of the camera has been on the whole beneficial or
prejudicial to art is one which I have never seriously
considered, and I hesitate to express an opinion off-
hand. It is just one of those debatable questions
on which a good deal may be said on both sides.
—Believe me, yours truly,
Geo. Reid.
22 Royal Terrace, Edinburgh.
From Mr. W. B. Richmond, A.R.A.
Dear Sir,—You have asked me a question, and
I am pleased to answer it.
Photography has been, no doubt, a medium of
instruction and benefit to painters as well as to the
public.
It has given chances to untravelled individuals
of seeing, and in a measure of possessing, the
masterpieces of the world in all that relates to art.
It is therefore curious that with such opportu-
nities, the general level of taste should not have
improved. Perhaps the old adage of familiarity
breeding contempt may be still only too true.
If photography reproduced for us only the best,
we should indeed exist in Utopia !
As it is, photography reproduces everything,
good, bad, and indifferent.
So we are confounded by a plethora and a con-
fusion. For those who know how to choose, what
to take and what to reject, light is an admirable
master ; for others it may prove to be a stumbling-
99
a factor in the result, it deserves to come within
the sacred pale of art, but in the outer courts
alone. That the camera at its best can select all
through the field of vision the essential and leave
the non-essential, can infuse the human interest
which such selection implies, and can replace the
indefinable personality of the real artist, is to ask
that a machine shall be not only directed by, but
possessed of, genius, and this, so far as knowledge
dares to forecast, is at present, and apparently must
always remain, impossible. It might be well to
add that this brief summary of a few aspects of the
question is offered merely as a tentative solution of
the problem, and was prepared before the opinion
of the various artists who have so kindly responded
to the appeal worded as the first sentence of this
introduction had been received. This much must
be said to avoid an appearance of a desire to
anticipate the view ot those far more competent
to judge, and to disdain any intention of arrogating
the position of a judicial summing up in a paper
that is intended to open—not to close—a discus-
sion on the camera in art.
II. By Various Eminent Authorities.
The question to which the following are replies
was intended to discover :—
" Whether the camera has, on the whole, been
beneficial or detrimental to art ? This query was
not intended to be taken in a commercial sense, but
to ascertain if the conventions hitherto accepted
by the painter have been modified since its intro-
duction ? "
From Sir Frederic Leighton, Bart., P.R.A.
Dear Sir,—I will confine myself on this occa-
sion to saying that photography may be of great use
or the reverse to an artist, according as it is used
with or without judgment and intelligence. I am
afraid you will consider this very vague, but in
reality it sums up the whole question. — Yours
faithfully, Fred. Leighton.
7 Holland Park Road, W.
From Mr. Laurence Alma Tadema, R.A.
Sir,—I am convinced that the camera has had
a most healthy and useful influence upon art. It
is of the greatest "use to painters.—Yours faithfully,
L. Alma Tadema.
17 Grove End Road, N.W.
From Sir John Everett Millais, Bart., R.A.
Sir,—No doubt photography has been beneficial,
and is often of value to the artist.—Faithfully yours,
J. E. Millais.
2 Palace Gate, W.
From Mr. W. P. Frith, R.A.
Dear Sir,—In my opinion photography has not
benefited art, and to the professors of certain
branches—to wit, miniature painting and engraving
—it has been so injurious as, in the form of photo-
gravure, to have nearly destroyed the latter; and by
means of coloured prints made to resemble minia-
tures a fatal blow has been struck at that beautiful
art.—Sincerely yours, .
W. P. Frith.
Ashen hurst, Forest Hill, S.
From Sir John Gilbert, R.A., P.R.W.S.
Sir,—I have not formed any opinion in my own
mind on the subject on which you desire to know
my views—viz., "The Influence of Photography on
Modern Art." It is an important matter, but one
which I am too feeble to fully consider. Therefore
I hope you will excuse me,— I am, yours faithfullv,
John Gilbert.
Blackheath.
From Sir George Reid, P.R.S.A.
Dear Sir,—The question whether the influence
of the camera has been on the whole beneficial or
prejudicial to art is one which I have never seriously
considered, and I hesitate to express an opinion off-
hand. It is just one of those debatable questions
on which a good deal may be said on both sides.
—Believe me, yours truly,
Geo. Reid.
22 Royal Terrace, Edinburgh.
From Mr. W. B. Richmond, A.R.A.
Dear Sir,—You have asked me a question, and
I am pleased to answer it.
Photography has been, no doubt, a medium of
instruction and benefit to painters as well as to the
public.
It has given chances to untravelled individuals
of seeing, and in a measure of possessing, the
masterpieces of the world in all that relates to art.
It is therefore curious that with such opportu-
nities, the general level of taste should not have
improved. Perhaps the old adage of familiarity
breeding contempt may be still only too true.
If photography reproduced for us only the best,
we should indeed exist in Utopia !
As it is, photography reproduces everything,
good, bad, and indifferent.
So we are confounded by a plethora and a con-
fusion. For those who know how to choose, what
to take and what to reject, light is an admirable
master ; for others it may prove to be a stumbling-
99